Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Advanced, Australia?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
From http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1653000/1653472.stm

Four months after Australia refused to take in migrants from the tiny, sinking Pacific nation of Tuvalu, Canberra has asked Tuvalu to take in Middle East asylum seekers.

A Tuvalu government official told the French
news agency AFP it had received a verbal
request from Australia.

Australia has turned away about 1,500 asylum
seekers since August, sending many to small
Pacific nations to have their claims processed.

With a total land area of 26 square kilometres and a population of 11,000 people, Tuvalu is one-tenth the size of
Washington DC, and spread over nine atolls.

It works out at 403 people per square kilometre compared to 2.4 people to every
square kilometre in Australia.

Earlier this year Tuvalu, worried about rising sea levels which it blames on climate change, appealed to New Zealand and Australia to take in some of its islanders.

New Zealand agreed to help, but in July
Australian Immigration Minister Philip Ruddock refused.

end.


There are a number of threads on these boards about immigration and the massive problems associated with it. There are arguments and counter-arguments and loads of different, valid points to be made. But to me, this is a black and white issue: Australia is being arrogant, selfish and wrong. It's a case of ministers sticking rigidly to a policy which is out of date and embarassing. But that's populism for you.

The Australian general elections were just faught on the basis of who could be more anti-imigration. The bigger biggot won.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dont think they are being bigoted in any way. If you have been to Australia you will see just how many different ethnic groups there are. Besides, when did countries become obliged to take in refugees and asylum seekers? Of course its just the westernised nations that do this.

    That article makes it sound like Tuvalu would have sunk in a couple of days. <IMG alt="image" SRC="http://www.thesite.org/ubb/smile.gif"&gt;

    If they are actually in danger then I think the Aus govt has an obligation to take them in. Its just human decency.

    This case is special because they are a member of the commonwealth. I think that Australia should be forced to take them. Surely thats the point of a commonwealth?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    We should be turning away all the sponging so called asylun seekers as well.

    500 million quid a year these spongers are costing the tax payer. That money could be spent on the NHS instead.

    peacechild
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you're turning away all the 'asylun' seekers then surely you're also missing out on all the doctors and nurses that could be helping the ailing NHS.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Balddog: I have been to Australia and know quite a few Australians. Yes there are a lot of different races - in the bigger cities anyway. It makes for great restaurants ;-)
    Still, a lot of the Austraians I have met are openly bigotted, not only to immigrants but to the Aboriginals as well. It makes for a not-so-hilarious irony that a country built on immigration has now turned around and said "we're full".

    It's not just western countries that have had massive immigration either. A country like Indonesia has alone, over 300 ethnic groups. They had to come from somewhere.

    I'm glad you've come up with a use for the Commonwealth - no one else can.

    Peacechild: you're a very angry person arne't you? Does it help to vent your feelings here? I hope so.

    Surely turning away genuine asylum seekers would be breaking the UN's 1967 Protocol which obliges countries to receive and formally recognise refugees fleeing persecution, no?

    Also, you seem very keen to bomb the Taliban because they have been so awful to the citizens they govern. Would you have welcomed these poorly-treated people in if they tried to get away from the Taliban? No, of course you wouldn't.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, asylum seekers do take our money, and in some cases openly hate us. But the media has over exxagerated this problem, germany for example accepts over 10 times the amount as we do, so count yourself lucky.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not everyone in Australia is a bigot just as not every asylum seeker is a money grabbing welfare leech.

    Did Australia sign up to the 1951 charter and the 1967 protocol?

    In case you missed it, we have welcomed those fleeing the Taliban. There are thousands of Afghans currently in and seeking asylum as we speak. Very few ever get turned down or deported.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Balddog:
    Did Australia sign up to the 1951 charter and the 1967 protocol?

    Yup. http://www.refugees.org/world/statistics/wrs01_tablepg9.htm

    Originally posted by Balddog:

    In case you missed it, we have welcomed those fleeing the Taliban. There are thousands of Afghans currently in and seeking asylum as we speak.

    Sure, but the point I'm making regards Peacechild's complaint. He doesn't want "so called asylun seekers" and I don't think he's willing or likely to make the distinction between the real or non-real. His gut reaction is based on the (apparently so-liberal) media portraying non-English people as sponges.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Im no expert on UN charters but isnt there something that can be done to force Aus to take these people in? If not then surely all UN charters are useless.

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Xenophobia. Bigotry. Racism.

    Three words that, I hate to admit, are associated with my country of birth and the place I would otherwise proudly call my home.

    In the 14 years I spent there, I've come across everything. And I must point out that the general feeling towards other ethnicities/races etc is far from hostility. Aussie's are, for the most part, proud of the way they accept and treat other races.

    But recently, the Liberal (conservative) government has been implementing anti-immigration policies. Why, do u ask? Here's reason number one:

    Once upon a time, the owner of a fish-shop in Brisbane, Queensland, decided she was bored of fish. So she moved into politics. What was it that bothered her the most? The foreigners, the letching, money-grabbing Chinks, the stinky Japs, the Lebs and the Wogs with their stupid foods and strange customs, the Indos with their funny coloured skin. Election time, she said pretty much what she thought, which, fortunately, wasn't a lot. But that didn't stop her One Nation party gaining support - a lot of support, considering her policies.

    Now, 5 year on, the Liberal coalition that by adopting SOME of her right-wing, xenophobic policies, they can win even MORE support. So they did. And that was the birth of mainstream xenophobia in Australia.

    One must also look at the current world situation, who it involves, and then look at one of the majority races in Australia - middle eastern, indian, pakistani etc. taking one view, why should we allow any more potential trouble makers in our country? why should we put ourselves at risk letting in afghans and pakis and so on?

    just another point of view. i dont condone the anti-immigration, xenophobic policies. but i do understand them.

    If there's anything more important than my ego around here, i want it caught and shot now
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why do people keep forgetting that Australia would have been perfectly entitled to take the whole Christmas Island lot into custody and put them on trial for piracy? There's no doubt that they seized that ship by use of force and coerced the crew with death threats - that constitutes piracy, an internationally recognized crime. Such things obviate asylum rights.




    You're damn right we need a rational code of morality and ethics. But not much progress can be made in that direction while we've still got a majority ranting about gods, devils, souls, and absolute morality, and using an ancient book written by ignorant nomads as a guide.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You know that would never work, If they took them in to custody then they could then claim asylym. And what are the chances of prosecuting every one? Or even five of them?
Sign In or Register to comment.