Take our user survey and make your voice heard.
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
© 2012 AFP123 rescued after asylum-seeker boat capsizes en route to Australia
SYDNEY©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.
Articles, Offers & Useful Resources
A mix of what's trending on our other sites
60 Comments
Login to comment
tchanglee
These muslim refugees should take refuge in Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. Yet many of them want to go to countries like Australia (non muslim). Note that they make one of their transits in Malaysia or Indonesia. Why doesn't muslim refugees seek refuge in Muslim countries? Because these muslim countries treat their them like shit! Talking about muslim brotherhood!
Cletus
This is getting ridiculous, enough pussy footing around the problem lies not only with the people smugglers but the corrupt officials in Indonesia who do absolutely nothing to stop this flow of boats that come from indonesian ports and Indonesia's waters. Tow them back to Indonesia's waters and send them back towards that country. If these people are so desperate to get out of Afghanistan or where ever else they come from then they shouldnt be so picky about where they end up. The reason they target Australia is because we are to gutless to stop them, oh we mustn't offend them and we must be nice to them and bend over backwards for them. Bring back offshore processing and off shore detention centers and deport them if they are not true refugees.
grammefriday
a statement just bursting with humanity.... sorry - I forgot, they are 'queue jumpers'.....
Cletus
Yes they are. And why should it be bursting with humanity, what would you have us do as a nation open our doors and let them all in?
illsayit
how come an australian boat was there? maybe opening the door would be easier
Herve Nmn L'Eisa
Refugees seek refuge first to preserve their lives, and secondly to improve their station in life. It only stands to reason they would aim to find refuge in nations with better human rights records.
grammefriday
It's ironic that during the Vietnam war (and on many other occasions) thats exactly what Australia did. Things seem to have changed in the last 15 years and alot of the change I think goes down to John Howard and his pals who continually demonised the refugees, claiming they were not 'entitled' to enter Australia. Unfortunately this sense of 'entitlement' pervades the Australian mentally at the moment despite the country being one of the richest in the world....
a point that many people dont seem to understand.
BurakuminDes
Agreed with you on the not liking that midget-sized PM and his policies. However, there are now record numbers of refugees trying to escape joints such as Afghanistan - under the majority of the Howard Prime Ministership, the refugee problem was no-where near as large. I don't have the answers myself either - but I am just glad the great majority of todays people were rescued. I hope their lives will become better from this day on. Excellent job by the Royal Aussie Navy for co-ordinating the rescue - thanks for doing nothing to help your fellow humans, Indonesians.
tmarie
As I stated before, there is a difference between illegal immigrants and refugee seekers. If these "refugees" are "Refugees seeking refuge first to preserve their lives, and secondly to improve their station in life. It only stands to reason they would aim to find refuge in nations with better human rights records" they would have been more than happy to stay in Malaysia. However, they aren't and took chances to go to Oz. Which causes me to question are they refugees or illegals.
Something needs to be done to stop this issue. Why is Oz rescuing them when they are closer to Indonesia? Tax payers are forking over tax money to rescue, cloth and feed these people. Shouldn't that money best be spent on those already IN the country that needs help?
I am all for helping those in need but if these people by pass Malaysia, which is one of the best Muslim countries in the world, with a thriving economy...
tmarie
claiming they were not 'entitled' to enter Australia.
They aren't.
You are also comparing Vietnam to now which is incorrect. More "boat people" now than ever before. Oz has a right to decide who gets in and who doesn't. You don't have to like it but that's the way it is.
grammefriday
sorry - this is the statement which is incorrect - there were far more 'boat people' in the 70's than there are now and in those days Australia accepted them
Cletus
grammefriday
Sorry it is you that is incorrect. From 1977 until 1994 Australia received 134,000 Vietnamese asylum seekers that is a period of 17 years which if you average it out is about 8000 per year. Last year alone there where 11510 Asylum seekers that came to Australia. In June of this year alone there was 1100. So lm sorry your statement is factually incorrect.
Cletus
grammefriday
Really, l think you will find at we let in a certain amount and others where relocated to other nations.
Thats right they are not entitled to enter Australia the way they do. There is a process for entering the country and as a taxpayer l for one am sick to death of having my taxes being used to rescue and house these people. They do not follow the established method for getting to Australia. They deprive their own fellow countrymen of spots because they choose to jump the queue. And lets face facts if they can afford the massive costs (approx $10000) the people smugglers charge then they really arnt that bad off now are they. Then when they arrive they get that much in handouts per person from our government. All the while they are filling spots that would have been take by people who cannot afford to pay people smugglers the real refugees.
Yeah, your forgetting one little detail there. Each year Australia allows in approximately 100,000 new immigrants. So l would say we are pretty giving. Maybe you should focus on other countries that are not so welcoming.....
Yeah the countries that are run by softies that will just keep allowing them to come and not stop them, and when they get there they are handed everything on a platter. That is why they come. That is why they bypass many other nations to try and reach Australia
tmarie
sorry - this is the statement which is incorrect - there were far more 'boat people' in the 70's than there are now and in those days Australia accepted them
Facts and figures please.
Cletus, my hat is off to you for being so kind.
anglootaku
Gillards scapegoat to escape from domestic issues such as more debts, unemployment and other more important issues..
edojin
We hear about these refugee boats when tragedy hits ... but I wonder, how many such boats actually reach the shores of Australia? Must be a lot ...
anglootaku
Not as many as British settlers boats back in the day I would imagine
anglootaku
(Sarcasm intended)
Cletus
So this boat was sinking in Indonesian waters and what did they do about it? Nothing. They left it up to Australia to rescue these people. And if this doesnt show Indonesia as an uncaring country what will. They are happy to let the boats sail from their and transit their waters to get to Australia but wont help if something goes wrong. All the while they are happy to receive aid worth millions from us for their help to stop the boat people. They are happy to receive our surplus military aircraft for free but do nothing to stop these people or even rescue them. No more aid or gifts to Indonesia its a waste of money and time dealing with this nation. Cut them off completely, and send any boats found straight back to Indonesia and let them deal with the problem
Tamarama
The total number of boat people to arrive in Australia since the first boat arrived in the 70's is around 50,000. That is a full house at Subiaco Oval on any given saturday, or a half full MCG. Over the course of 40 years. Not many, and not proportionate to the media hell-frenzy that gets whipped up every time a leaky, overcrowded vessel comes over the horizon towards Christmas Island.
To leave your home, family, culture, language, friends etc to risk everything at a stinky 3rd world Indo port is terrible. I don't begrudge these people a better life, but the real problem here is how many of them don't make it. This cannot be addressed in Australia, it has to be taken care of properly in Indonesia - they need a real task force trailing the people smugglers, stopping them from loading too many people in unseaworthy vessels and arresting them for the practice. Indonesia, at present, isn't doing enough - but then I doubt they really care that much either.
Tamarama
Actually, I've overestimated by nearly 20,000. The number to the end of 2011 was 31,654. 1/3rd capacity of the MCG.....
Cletus
Sorry but thats the funniest thing l've read in a long time. Most of the officials in Indonesia are more than likely getting a cut from the smugglers to look the other way. So this will never work... Its time to bring back Johnny Howard's methods, he had his faults but under his reign boat arrivals where on average 100 people per year. Now under the ranga they are averaging 3000 per year. Bit of a difference hey?
tokyobakayaro
Then after that problems start. They want their food with religious slaughter of animals. They want to wear their clothes which tend to hide face of women, they want to have their schools which would teach their religion to their kids. They want to have their praying places with their own religious leaders who often tend to desagree with non charia laws. Bigotery leads to isolation and then they start playing the victim card. Women want to drive with a ninja costume, parents asking for halal menu in school...
You know what is funny? It is all those stuff they have back in their countries that led them to misery, civil wars, terrorism and totally corrupt governments. It reminds me termites, you know, they eat the whole house they live in and when it collapses, they just go to the next house. The next house is your country.
But why do they always want to recreate the very same environment they had back there? Religious food, clothes, manners. Why do they not understand that their religious belief is not compatible with democracy? It is like a disease you would want to cotaminate to everyone on purpose.
Cletus
tokyobakayaro
Exactly right. Their previous life was so intolerable yet its exactly what they want to recreate in another country. And sadly we bend over backwards and let then for we must not offend them....
grammefriday
Nobodies 'entitled' to humanity regardless of the conditions they are trying to escape are they?
Cletus - it is a heavy burden you carry - always being so right and righteous....
Cletus
grammefriday
Oh those poor unfortunate people shelling out $10,000 per person to be able to jump the queue. Oh and for the record l am happy to support the refugees all 13000 per year that come to Australia through proper channel. The ones l dont support are the ones that queue jump and pay for their passage and try and sneak in illegally. Its that simple
Yes it is, thank you for recognising that fact.... ;-)
Tamarama
Cletus
Then try to get out more.
That's just your opinion, and in any event, who says they have to be Indonesian?
This is where you, and a lot of people get confused chasing the straw man. If you think about the number of arrivals I quoted above, the average number of people arriving by boat each year is around 800. The number of illegal immigrants INSIDE Australia in 2011 - mostly Brits and Americans, totalled nearly 60,000, a whopping 12 times the number of Asylum seekers who arrived by boat in 2011. You want to bang on about cue jumpers Cletus? There is your real target.
What a load of rubbish.
Cletus
Tamarama
Well considering that many of the boats call at Indonesian ports, or travel through Indonesian waters on their way to Australia then it is fair to say some palms are being greased.
Sorry Tamarama but according to the official Australia government figures during the entire Howard reign (11 years) there was a total of 13515 boat people arrive in Australia at an average of 1228 per year. After Howard implemented the Pacific solution the number dropped to 140 people over a 5 year period. Under the Labour government (6 yrs) there has been not counting this years arrivals 14155 boat people arrive, that is an average of 2359 per year. Now in the last year of Howards Pacific solution there was 60 boat people arrive in Australia. 2 years later under Rudd there was 2726 arrivals. And those figures are from the Australian government so dispute them all you like they are what the government are saying the arrivals have been. As for the number of illegals inside Australia that is not the discussion here. Boat people is what we are talking about. However since you mention it of the 60,000 illegals in Australia you claim most are from the US and UK yet again the government puts those from the US at 5080 and UK at 3610. Those from China make up the majority, and Malaysia comes in third after the US.
Just a tip try and get your facts right.
Rubbish, really! Care to explain why many state and local governments banned the singing of christmas carols in public schools, banned christmas celebrations. Care to explain why some fast food restaurants in predominantly muslim areas changed their menus to remove pork products. Care to explain why a muslim can enter a bank with a full face cover on yet anyone else cant even have a hoodie on their head. Care to explain why we are required to allow other religions special privalages at work to cater for their religion and failure to accomodate puts you at risk of a discrimination suit against the business. And the list goes on and on. And you say rubbish..... Yeah maybe where your from try going to one of the major capital cities and see what the reality is.
illsayit
so cletus, in a secular country you deny any form of thinking that isnt yours, that sounds hypocritical. but I do agree to stop supporting Indonesia would be good, but then I reckon opening the doors and adjusting the regulations about landing in Australia so that Australia gets the 10,000 dollars worth, not to mention the continued consumption that would create dollars for business already in Australia....I dunno I was too against the monies they were spending to get to Australia because there is still so many needy in Australia, and it seemd hypocritical to be calling themselves asylum seekers, but I talked to some of the more needy-er people of Australia and they still had a giving heart, so that got me thinking. But as you point out accepting them and taking their monies to cover their entrance and halting support to Indonesia is a fantastic idea.
Tamarama
Cletus http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/BoatArrivals
Total number of arrivals by boat since 1976 is 31,653, with the year by year breakdown. Average number of arrivals per year = 879. Oh the horror. Oh the terror. Burn your straw man! Burn him I say!
OK, The US, the UK, China...wherever. I haven't seen you mention anything of the cultural terror and cue jumping of these people to now, Cletus. Why? Why you so hung up on people arriving by boat? That seems a very selective group you have singled out to me.
Reference please.
Probably because it's better for business.
Because it's culturally appropriate. You afraid someone is going to suicide bomb the ANZ bank?
Because we are a multi cultural society who accepts and celebrates the fantastically diverse cultural practices of our people in an inclusive way. We really are great like that.
I'm typing this from one of the major Australian capital cities, tiger....
little_miss
Let them in, filter out the possible terrorist links and march them straight to the mines. Force Gina and Clive to train them up. They've mostly come from hot desolate countries, no? Straight out to the Pilbara. Perfect! It's the answer to the labour shortage. Two birds and all that.
tmarie
That's just your opinion, and in any event, who says they have to be Indonesian?
You seem to be a little clueless as to how people smuggling works. There must be a port, there must be a boat, there must be people in said country who are well aware of what is going on and get a piece of the pie... In this case, that would most likely be Indonesia. Indonesia is well known for corruption and bribes.
You also seem to be confusing someone who is against illegal immigration and disliking foreigners. This line of attacks is boring, old and really pathetic. I am more than happy for immigrants AND refugees to come to my country. I am however, totally against boat people who have paid snakeheads vast amounts of money to become illegal immigrants because they know a) they really aren't refugees by the definition of what one is b) aren't the type of person the country wants. Many of those people on these boats fall into the categories. Any idea how much this costs the taxpayers in the long run? Million upon millions on dollars. Two rescue operations in the past two weeks. How many mouths to house and feed, put through the court system, lawyers, court time....
The number of illegal immigrants INSIDE Australia in 2011 - mostly Brits and Americans, totalled nearly 60,000, a whopping 12 times the number of Asylum seekers who arrived by boat in 2011. You want to bang on about cue jumpers Cletus? There is your real target. Yes and no. Those Brits and Yanks paid their way into the country, are more than likely working, paying rent, paying taxes and helping the economy. Those landing on the shores of needing rescue are leeches from day one. That being said, by all means, round up the illegal Yanks and Brits, send them home and charge them for the airfare, court fees... No one is stating they should be allowed to stay and aren't part of the problem of illegals.
While Tokyo's comments are well, rather shocking.. He's made some rather valid points. Many come because they want a better life but then bring a lot of their sexist, biased and racist thinking with them that causes problems. That isn't just an illegal issue, it is an immigration issue. One that needs to be dealt with but really, if people are running from persecution because of their gender, religion, race... I find it rather upsetting that once settled, they do continue to have issues with these - honor killings in the UK for examples, the racist comments towards those of the "host" country...
Cletus
Tamarama
Yes that is the same site l am looking at. And guess what l can average the whole lot of figures to. But the year with only 1 person arriving (2002) tends to skew the data now doesnt it. My point is this and if you read it and referred to the figures you are using you would see. When the Howard government introduced the Pacific solution (2002 - 2007) the number of arrivals dropped to a total of 140 for 5 years or and average of 28 per year. Since this was removed by the labour government in the proceeding 5 years (not including 2012) there has been 14155 arrivals at an average of 2359 per year. So we can compare 28 per year to 2359 per year and ask whose policy worked better? That is my point. So lm sorry but your whole point is mute. Why would you discuss something all the way back to the 70's we are talking recent history and my figures come from the same place as yours and they show a massive increase in the past 5 years over the previous 5 years.
Sorry but this article is about the boat people not the people overstaying their visa's. You are the one who mentioned the visa overstayers, you are the one who misrepresented the facts by claiming and l quote you "The number of illegal immigrants INSIDE Australia in 2011 - mostly Brits and Americans, totalled nearly 60,000"..... So you claim that US and UK make up the bulk of the 60,000..... Yet government figures show only 5000 from the US and 3600 from UK. So much for them "mostly" making up the 60,000....
Fine here are some examples. 1/Dec/ 2010 the new Victorian premier warned schools not to ban christmas celebrations for PC reasons. 8/Dec/2010 Kindergartens in Victoria ban Santa Clause for fear of offending minorities Sept 2011 a Western Australian school bans saying a prayer at assembly despite it being recited for 25 years. That enough examples for you.
Really and what about the majority of the population that do not subscribe to their religion. They have to suffer because of a minority group ...... Why if its that much of a problem cater for both groups needs...
Yeah culturally appropriate as we saw last year with the woman who used her religion to try and get away with a traffic fine. Because she refused to show her face. Thankfully that has been fixed now. And no lm not afraid someone will suicide bomb a ANZ bank but fair is fair.
Yeah you obviously havent come across this situation in your work career. Its great when certain people take easter off with everyone else then demand their holy days off as well and when the company refuses because it will leave them short staffed these people complain that they are being discriminated against. Or the situation where food is banned in restrooms because some of the staff are fasting and its unfair on them to smell others eating. Yeah its a great country we are building for ourselves.
Yeah sorry Perth doesnt count....
Tamarama
Cletus
It's moot. The term you are looking for is moot.
The point I am trying to make is not whether Labor or Liberal are better at preventing boats from landing in Australia, but that the whole argument is consistently blown right out of proportion and is, in fact, a side show to the real issue of illegal immigrants in Australia. John Howard mainipulated the dopey portion of the electorate wickedly in 2001 with the Tampa Incedent to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat because he knew how to play on the fears of the redneck dumbos and fool them into thinking that we face some kind of cultural invasion from over the horizon. It's a fallacy.
Well, I was quoting this article; http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050
But if that gives you the chance to try to skip past the reality of what this figure makes of your position, then go ahead.
And this pretty much perfectly encapsulates the integrity of your arguments, Cletus. You will type just about anything as long as you are still typing. Hyperbole, semantics, disingenouos statements, whatever. And remember...it's moot.
grammefriday
this sort of comment adds nothing to the discussion.....
Christina O'Neill
When there is a proven case for an assylum seeker at the border of any country, then the granting of sanctuary is the only humane decision.Australia does grant this for those with a valid application.and cause. Those that do not will no doubt be deported
little_miss
@grammefriday
Whyever not? This is the state of play in Australia at the moment in a nut shell but Ill expand just for you shall I? A large portion of the country using the 'queue jumper' label to hide, not their xenophobia but their greed, exactly the same way they whinge about import of skilled labour to shore up the billions worth of mining projects coming online during the next part of the boom. Both sides of the government d***ing around with off shore solutions and jobs boards to keep the voters happy instead of growing a pair, processing everyone faster and keeping the asylum seekers off welfare by standing up to the mining companies and having them invest in people whove already made a permanant move, rather than imported and temporary labour.
tmarie
but that the whole argument is consistently blown right out of proportion and is, in fact, a side show to the real issue of illegal immigrants in Australia.
So what exactly IS the "real" issue then? You've gone on about Brits and Yanks but as I already pointed out, most of them are contributing to society but paying rent, taxes, working... They aren't being rescued, housed, fed, clothed... Most I assume were "desirable" at some point - even for just a tourist visa - as they would have gone through immigration at the airport, port... I certainly don't excuse them (I personally hate visa over-stayers as they mess it up for those who are legal) but in the long run, they aren't costing the taxpayers too much, fit in with the culture, speak the language.... Same can't be said for other illegals who are trying to claim refugee status.
And as I asked before, why not stay in Malaysia? Similar religious beliefs, a booming economy...
TigermothII
It’s the same old argument with the bleeding heart types – ‘they are human beings, why not just let them in?’
Well, I can think of quite a number of reasons, and all of them the more liberal minded amongst you will likely find offensive, perhaps label them as racist, and at the very least call me inhuman. No, it’s called practicality.
A century ago accepting refuges and general immigrants from foreign nations was the status-quo. And it was a workable system as many immigrants, yes likely mostly from Europe, brought skill sets with them that a young, growing industrial nation might need. And they brought labor. Unfortunately for the workers, it meant cheap labor but all systems have their faults and growing pains. But there was still plenty of space and the laws of supply and demand made it mostly work.
Fast-forward to today. Now overcrowding is all too common, and the taking in of large numbers of refuges/immigrants becomes not a good thing, but a hindrance and economic nightmare. Just look at Britain for a prime illustration. Immigrants tend to want to live where there are people and the possibility of jobs. They don’t go live in Smallsville, Ohio or out in the bush in Australia – they move to the cities where there is hope for work. But this isn’t 1912 and the economy base is not the same. There aren’t a million factories looking for workers to sew shirts or work assembly lines. When the folks coming to a country have no skills and cannot speak the language, they instead just become a social services burden that those working have to shoulder. Yes, it’s unfortunate for both sides of the coin. But that’s life. How much over-populating and over-burdening of an economic system do you allow?
Someone native to Brisbane, or Chicago has nothing to do with the form of government and system of society that exists in these third-world crap-holes where no one wants to live. In this country (US) we suffered a revolution, a civil war and several other conflicts to become a forward-thinking progressive industrial democracy. Rather than flee your collective hell-holes to come to our relative land of happiness, stand up for yourselves and take your countries back. Don’t become religious weirdo's and keep yourself in the 13 century. Most every land has some resource and some advantage to offer the world that could allow them to become prosperous if they embraced development rather than spewing on about the corrupt evil west and decrying their love of Allah or some other superstitious nonsense.
Okay, I’m sure many of you are saying ‘how dare you ‘ and that western democracy, industrialization and free enterprise certainly has its issues and should not be expected everywhere. Well, you reap what you sow. If you have old ideals in a clannish society that promotes draconian rule over human inventiveness, and keeps your population poor and ignorant through religious fear (remember, Napoleon once said that religion was invented by the rich to keep the poor from killing them – there is much truth to that) then you’ve written your fate. Those that choose a different past should not be held responsible for those who chose otherwise. And yes, I do realize that most do not choose such a life to begin with, but rather are born into it. As stated, that requires action, not blind faith to a proven flawed and failed system. Nations and people have the power to change things themselves if they have the courage to do it. Don’t blame those that did if they do not.
JeffLee
So the Afghanistan War has been an utter failure. Western countries have spent 100 bil. dollars or so and given thousands of their lives to bring peace, democracy and human rights to that country. Now the Afghans can't stand living under such conditions and are risking their lives to flee that eternal hellhole.
Tamarama
tmarie
If they aren't genuine refugees, they get sent home, right? If they are, Australia has a moral and humanitarian obligation to offer them protection. The term queue-jumper is a term designed to appeal to the sense of moral outrage in the nationalists and bigots in the country. It's worked a treat.
Wow. It's a bit like George Orwell's Animal Farm, isn't it. You know; "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than other." People like you and Cletus claim that the Boat People are 'Well off' because they are spending up to $10,000 on the fare to come to Australia, whereby, they flee civil war, oppression, persecution, or whatever, and their money buys them a lottery ticket on a death trap out of Medan. On the other hand, your Brits, Yanks, Malaysians and Chinese buy a nice plane ticket from a prosperous, stable, wealthy country, with plenty of spending money for a holiday and to set up a house or pay the considerable international Tertiary education fees, exploit their in-country connections for an income stream and try to stick around long enough to manipulate a long term stay one way or the other. They have two advantages over the refugees. 1. They are just fortunate enough to come from a country that doesn't arouse our suspicions as much as the refugees, and 2. They have more resources at their disposal and therefore have more choices. But they are doing exactly the same thing.In fact it's not, because they aren't fleeing anything, they just 'like' Australia. So I call your position completely hypocritical.
Which means that the real issue is that you have been duped into believing that the arrival of boat people is some kind of potential destruction of the fabric of Australian society, that this is the greatest political issue of our time. It's not, and it never has been. We have far greater illegal immigration issues in Australia, and the amount of time and money we spend gnashing our teeth over this issue is completely disproportionate. .
tmarie
If they aren't genuine refugees, they get sent home, right? After how many years of sitting in detention centers? Who pays for their housing, clothing, court fees, return trip home..
You are trying to use Animal Farm on this subject? Perhaps you need to go back to school and learn what animal farm is about. There isn't any debate about things because "equal" because that isn't what we are talking about at all. I don't think I claimed that any of these boat people are 'well off". Point out where I did or retract that comment please. My position isn't hypocritical as I have stated they should also be shown the door. I am not suggesting they be allowed to stay. Suggesting THAT would indeed by hypocritical but since haven't said that....
A few boat people isn't an issue. the numbers that are showing up now IS an issue. You had far more immigration as a time when it was "needed". It isn't so much now and certainly not with a "free for all" that you seem to support. Who pays for the language classes, the support, the food, the shelter... that these people need the first few years they are here? Now multiple that by the number and get back to me with how much this costs the taxpayers. Nothing wrong with helping those who need help but in this case, again, if they are that bad off, why not stay in Malaysia? Why is Oz the place they want to be when Malaysia is more suitable to their lifestyle? You keep refusing to answer this question and you do so because you know you don't have a good answer for it.
JeffLee
"The number to the end of 2011 was 31,654"
You're ignoring their family sponsorship rights. In Canada, the average single immigrant ends up sponsoring around five others: kids, parents, brothers, sisters, etc.
In Sweden, for instance, a popular asylum destination (mainly due to the generous social welfare system), Muslims make up 5% of the population after a very short history, and the number is doubling about every 8 years. In a couple of decades, they will easily become the country's largest minority.Since the two cultures are starkly at odds with each other, it will be "interesting" to see what kind of outcome transpires.
Denmark already got a taste: the clerics who ratted out the cartoonist had both been granted asylum by Denmark.
illsayit
the thing is it was the bigots who shoved it in everyones faces about 'helping out those poor people' in the first place. They were quite happy to give jobs to the immigrants as they were seen as in need of sympathy, but the average Joe was a lazy good for nothing. Not even wortha job and make sure he knows by letting every foreign poor pauper have a job and tell him how bad it was back home.....Now that those bigots are starting to smell the cheese, they want to keep em all out, and the poor pauper says suck it up man! But, of course we wouldnt want to bring in the subject of language, and inform how the government constantly feeds ALL foreigners a free education, private lessons in ENglish at the Queens service, um the taxpayers service. And nobody talks about how wage structure and cost of living can not support a family anymore, two incomes or else. Kids mean nannies, but dont pay stay at home mothers, their not to be called a nanny, that's a grandmother and their not that old, their workable; therefore if women with children did their job, and let the average male asylum seeker a job to support his family, and the bigots coughed up the cash for a one income family being good enough, then hells bells. But gender talk has nothing to do with this so just let them in, declare Australia a Jewish based coutry(that means Christianity as well) have Santa for the commercialism and she'll be right mate!
Tamarama
tmarie
sigh I'm not surprised you can't see the relevence of the quote, to be honest.
You make a clear distinction between the types of illegal immigrants you prefer to be allowed to stay in Australia based purely on where they come from and how they arrived. That suggests to me that you are a bigot.
Because it seems a question you best ask them. My guess though, is because they want the best for their family and kids, like all of us. Sadly, they probably perceive Australia to be an open and tolerant society that offers them hope and opportunity they don't have in thier own country. I just hope they don't run into the likes of you and have all that dashed once they get here.
JeffLee
Is that an opportunity afforded to all immigrants, or just the Muslims?
illsayit
yepp that's right can someone please tell them it makes no difference where you are, it would save the divide that is being created in AUstralia
tmarie
Sigh. And I'm surprised that you can't see how a book about dictatorship doesn't apply here.
You make a clear distinction between the types of illegal immigrants you prefer to be allowed to stay in Australia based purely on where they come from and how they arrived. That suggests to me that you are a bigot.
Oh FFS, call me a bigot, yes, that'll win the debate. How many times have I said that those I "prefer" (again, wrong) need to be shown the door as well? How many times? Go on. Go back, read my posts. Direct quote me where I said they should be allowed to stay. Off you go. Don't post anything else until you have found where I have stated ANY illegal should be allowed to stay. Good luck but you won't find one word of me saying such crap. I don't support illegal immigrants staying anywhere. Period. I don't care there passport colour, their gender, their race, their religion. A bigot. The classic line people trot out when they are clearly grasping at straws.
Because it seems a question you best ask them. My guess though, is because they want the best for their family and kids, like all of us. Sadly, they probably perceive Australia to be an open and tolerant society that offers them hope and opportunity they don't have in thier own country. I just hope they don't run into the likes of you and have all that dashed once they get here.
I am asking YOU because YOU are the ones defending them and their choice to go from one country that has much better human rights (a comment YOU made) records than their home country. Run into the likes of me? Yes, someone who is married to a different person of race and religion, someone who is an immigrant herself, someone who is from an immigrant family... Yes, "I" am the issue, not their illegal status. Give me a break.
Cletus
Tamarama
Indeed it is and l apologise that my silly spell check changed it without me realising.
Well lm sorry but if in fact you were quoting that article then you definitely misrepresented the facts when you claimed that the bulk of the 60,000 where from the US and UK. Because l have read that article and it CLEARLY shows the figures l quoted 5000 for US and 3600 for UK. So l honestly dont know where you claim the bulk of 60,000 are US and UK people.
Well if this is the response one gets when one points out flaws in your argument like your misrepresenting facts and figures then it shows a lot about the person now doesnt it. You have put forward many points all of which have been shown as false by figures that are easily obtainable from the Aust Government. You misrepresent figures which has been shown time and again and change a debate from the boat people and try and drag in other groups to bolster your sinking arguments.
Cletus
tmarie
tmarie, this is the typical statement that is thrown in your face at home when you dare bring up the topic of stopping boat people coming to our country. When they run out of arguments as to why we should allow these people in (any illegals) you get branded a bigot, redneck or racist. Yet the same people calling you that cannot give you the decency of your own opinion. The fact is my taxes go to supporting these illegals just as much as the likes of Tamarama's do and l dont want my taxes wasted on these people (any illegals) yet that instantly makes me racist, a redneck or a bigot. If the like of Tamarama is so keen to allow illegals into the country then perhaps he / she could offer a room in his / her house and support them until they are established and can make a positive contribution to society because l for one am not prepared to support them.
And before this gets turned around by the likes of Tamarama, l actually do support immigration, and in fact during my life l have made some great friends that are have arrived in Australia legally as immigrants and the funniest thing is these people often tend to be the strongest most opinionated when it comes to stopping illegal immigration.
The fact is every single one of Tamarama's arguments has been shown to be factually false. The claim that US / UK people make up the bulk of illegals. False. The fact that we are forced to change our ways because of these new arrivals. He / she called rubbish and when proof is offered changes the subject. He / she claims illegal immigration is not a problem as only 800 people per year on average arrive. Well if you go back far enough the average would be even lower.. Facts are illegal boat people are increasing massively.
And finally it has just been announced that a third boat load of people has just declared an emergency and needs rescuing this one carrying 100 people. So thats 3 in less than a week and Tamarama maintains there is no increase. HA
tmarie
That's just it. I 100% immigration - how could I not being a) an immigrant myself in Japan and b) from an immigrant family back ion my home country. The problem is some people don't seem to understand that one can be pro-immigration and anti-illegal immigration. Why it is so hard for being to grasp this basic thinking is beyond me. But yep, I'm a bigot, I'm a racist.... Perhaps I should let all those minorities in my family know - and let my husband know as well. He might be just as shocked as my family back home!
And yes, is this person willing to open up their home to these people. Better yet, has this person actually ever spent time with refugees at all? Oh, oh, oh! I win, I win! I used to volunteer and teach ESL to a few Bosnians back home.... Does my bigoted, racist behind get a cookie for that?
A third boat? Good lord. I'm glad I'm not an Aussie tax payer.
Tom Webb
The short-term solution is to dump all of these people back to the port where the ship or boat started the voyage from.
Tamarama
Tmarie
Congratulations. This officially makes you the same as 97.5% of Australians, whose existance in Australia is the direct result of some form of immigration. Despite your rants, based on what you have said, my opinion of you does not change.
Cletus
Whether you are happy about it or not, Australia is a signatory nation to the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and as such we have an obligation to accept refugees into Australia on humanitarian grounds. They are processed, and if found to have a genuine case, are granted asylum. Some arrive by plane, others arrive by sea and some are chosen from refugee camps in various parts of the world. I support Australia being a party to this and I am proud we share this life we have with others. I absolutely don't mind some of my taxes being used to help my fellow man - I am well off, relatively speaking, and I strongly believe in initiatives my country has to support this. It's hardly a surprise we don't see eye to eye, when your opinion is this;
That's my position. Clear enough?
What is this, amateur hour? Together they account for 14% of illegals, slightly more than the Chinese at 13% and Malaysians round out the top 4 at about 7%. Definition of 'bulk of' - The major portion or greater part of.
I found reports of the grand total of 1 Kindergarten in Victoria doing this. Do you have any others? Or are the other 9434 schools in Australia doing things as per usual? Your report on the Western Australian school just cites 'parents' as objecting to the Lord's Prayer being said in the School. This is a state school - Edgewater Primary. State schools are never required to recite the Lord's Prayer, so I'm not sure why you would use this as part of your argument. Unless you didn't read it properly. But here is something I also came across in response to the Kindergarten in Victoria;
So thats 3 in less than a week and Tamarama maintains there is no increase
Oh Cletus, how terribly unbecoming to put words into the mouth of your opponent in order to strengthen your own position. Tsk. Tsk. And again;
No, he/she claims it isn't the problem the likes of you claim it is. Big difference.
Cletus
Tamarama
Correct we do provided they are genuine refugees (which is reportedly only 50% of the cases) and if they are not then they get sent straight back to where they came from.
Believe it or not l agree with giving support to refugees as well, but not people who come by boat bypassing the established channels for seeking refugee status.
Your position is crystal clear. As is mine, l am willing to support refugees who come to Australia through the proper channels as for those who bypass the proper channels and push in ahead of others who are following the rules. I say deport them immediately. You do not mind your taxes being used to support these criminals, l do not. If you are so happy for them to come then simple open your house up to them and support them financially in that way. It will save the rest who do not support them from getting our tax money used on them and it can be used for more important things like our own people who are in need.
Sorry lovey but you said "The number of illegal immigrants INSIDE Australia in 2011 - mostly Brits and Americans, totalled nearly 60,000" not bulk... Your claim is that of the 60,000 most are US or UK persons and this is false get it.... Now you are combining the US and UK people to show they are a higher portion. Sheez. Yet even when you combine both US and UK its still only 1% higher than the Chinese. Give it a rest love you were wrong and you got caught out making false statements.
Remember l made a statement which you called rubbish and asked for examples. I gave you 3 examples which could be found in less than 1 minute of looking. Now you want more. Lets face it l could keep providing examples until the cows come home and it wouldnt satisfy you. But l will say this there is obviously an issue when the premier of the state gets up and warns public schools not to ban christian celebrations.
Um maybe you should go back and reread you posts again.... Oh but there is only and average of 800 per year coming to Australia.... Hows your average looking this year? we are well over 2800 for the year. And thats on top of the 5000 last year and 5600 the year before and 1000 the year before.... Hmm not looking good for your average maybe if you stretch it back to 1900 it would look better....
Tamarama
Cletus
God, I feel like I am arguing with a child. Which is why this will be my last post on this thread. Definition of 'most; Greatest in number, Greatest in amount, The greatest part or number. Therefore; and let me spell it out for you to save your confusion, the largest portion is comprised of US and UK citizens. But I think you intentionally de-rail arguments like this by jumping on what you misunderstand as an anomaly so as to distract from the reality of what these numbers make of your vehement arguments against the boat people, to wit, that they are fairly misplaced.
No, again you miss the point. Of the examples you gave, 1 proved to be true, and 1 proved to be possibly completely unrelated. Which means that in exactly 0.0001% of Australian schools - this shocking wave of cultural change is sweeping like a tsunami. Which is to say, that the examples you gave are a complete load of rubbish and proof of absolutely nothing at all.
There you go again, reworking someone's argument to augment your own. I've had more than enough of this childlike approach to a discussion. I have better things to do with my time.
kumibo
It hurts me to see the complete lack of empathy by some of the posters here. Thankfully there are enough sensible people (just enough, but I'd welcome more) to keep me from giving up all hope. I find the term 'queue jumpers' to be quite abhorrent – they are the queue. I don’t understand how anyone could accuse the down-trodden, the persecuted and threatened as being ‘queue-jumpers’. Immigrants from safe and well-off countries (UK, USA etc) can bide their time, fill in the paper work and wait patiently in their own separate queue to immigrate to Australia if they wish. If my life was threatened, and that of my family; I would do everything in my powers to get my family to a safe and settled environment – and hope that the host country would accept me (and help where it could). I would pay my life savings to a ‘people smuggler’ or like. I would hold on to some aspects of my cultural identity (be they support of national sport teams, my religion, or my food preferences) – they are my identity and make me what I am. It would not mean I don’t appreciate my new country (far from it). I really don’t comprehend the complete lack of understanding of some of the posters here – do you expect people from war-torn countries (the persecuted) to write a letter to Australia saying their life (and that of their family) is under immediate threat and they’d like to move to Australia while waiting patiently in an orderly ‘queue’ for three years? That is madness.
Kumibo
tmarie
Congratulations. This officially makes you the same as 97.5% of Australians, whose existance in Australia is the direct result of some form of immigration. Despite your rants, based on what you have said, my opinion of you does not change.
Guess I should have said first generation for you little mind to understand/ And rant? If anyone is crying here it is you. Great, your opinions don't change but if you think policy in Oz isn't going to....
. They are processed, and if found to have a genuine case, are granted asylum.
IF. Any idea how many of those who come are allowed to stay??
Oh and in case you forgot.... I'm still waiting for How many times have I said that those I "prefer" (again, wrong) need to be shown the door as well? How many times? Go on. Go back, read my posts. Direct quote me where I said they should be allowed to stay. Off you go. Don't post anything else until you have found where I have stated ANY illegal should be allowed to stay.
You can apologize to me anytime now...
tmarie
If my life was threatened, and that of my family; I would do everything in my powers to get my family to a safe and settled environment
Like, say, Malaysia??
skipbeat
What were the asylum-seekers running from religious persecution, politics, lifestyle, or economic hardship?
illsayit
You need a story to eep talking doncha! Skip the answer to your question is 'whichever will benefit me'. So it just so happens I had a foreigner visit my place yesterday(or was it the day before) looking for cars to send back to his country where not too long ago he said there was terrorism. he said it is safe there now though but cars rego is so expensive they just vamp up their old cars. I sympathised, Im glad the terror has gone. I sympathised, yeah sure can understand how hard it can be when living is expensive. I was told wages were low, but food on par with Japan in prices. Well that's okay then where I come from the food costs like as if you were hauling it from the moon. Yeah but Im so poor I send my money back to my family to survive. Can someone help me out with Maths, if cost of living in Japan+ support of living in another country+ I dont need to be with my family cause it is safe enough now= A quick recovery? Well listen mate if you're after cars you can head to Tohoku, they're still piled up. He hands me 4 more business cards. Does that mean Im supposedto do something-is there an unsaid agreement that I am now in agrrement to peddle his business?? Help! I know nothing about cars. He says, but Australia is a rich country cause my relative is there?!?! and it is good for foreigners there, his relative said everybody where they live is a foreigner??? Confused. Do you think my definition of economic hardship, persecution, politics, and lifestyle may differ to this guy?