Wednesday, October 17, 2012

The Illegals

I wrote a post referencing Fruit Cake's recent series of well argued posts about refugees in Australia.  What I wrote was inaccurate and illogical and I am not prepared to put the time in to research details.

I will just state what I think, which may or may not match facts.

People who are claiming refugee status when they arrive in Australia are entitled to come any which way they like. If it is by a leaky boat, fine. If is by airplane, that is fine too. There is nothing illegal about a refugee trying to gain sanctuary.

We have experienced people who we pay to judge whether they are dinki di refugees or not. I suspect most are not, but are people who want come to Australia for a better life. I suspect many have been accepted as genuine refugees who are not. But I suppose we have to trust the system.

I also suggest that the arrivals' status should be determined within one month and a decision made. To have people in camps and in offshore processing places for extended periods is cruel, especially when if the department is doing its job and most will be sent home.

Yes, some people live in crap countries and I was born lucky enough to live in an ok western country.

Meanwhile in Africa, a starving woman sees her starving child die. Put the huge of amount of money that we waste on refugee matters into education of the masses in Africa. This is a long term solution. Educated people don't overbreed but dictators don't like their masses to be educated.

Education is the only thing that will save the third world human race from its propensity to breed and populate.

As for the boat people, I don't care anymore. Let them drown at sea for their foolishness. Of course I don't mean that literally, but the politics of the boat arrivals  is ever so wearing.

There is always the Malaysian option. No, not the one Julia proposed, the real Malaysian solution, when they just pushed boats arriving back out to international waters and let them drown.

Someone who is thirty years old has probably heard about the 'illegals' for most of their life. They must be well over it too.

If someone's life or well being is at risk, they should be up for consideration. If they have made it to Indonesia or Malaysia, they are probably safe once there.

We will decide who comes to our country, so ex PM John Howard said. Much as I despise him, I don't disagree.


  1. My own husband walked with his parents and siblings across the mountains from Czechoslovakia to Austria. No passports, no visas. They sat in a stateless refugee prison camp, desperate. They came to Australia.

    In my year at school, 95% of my class had no passports and no visas from their countries of origin. Australia needed new population in the early 1950s, so we took them in. Eventually.

    Now we don't need new population, so we push them out to sea. It has nothing to do with the poor sods seeking asylum. We have become a brutal society.

    1. Hels, I can understand if you are cross with me. Boiled down, you are right. We don't need a new population and much of the gov's policies are based on this. I would like Australia to be able to say welcome all, but it is impractical, especially as I often argue, our services and infrastructure are inadequate for the present population. Australia should have a humane refugee system, and I suspect it did up until Howard was elected. I am not sure what went wrong. While there was some discomfort about Indo Chinese refugees, it was not major and I don't recall political points being scored. How many of the present boat arrivals are now coming from Sri Lanka? What percentage are not Tamil, who are supposedly under threat. It is a hard one, for sure and not helped by the politics of it.

  2. Over here, the immigrants essentially put the natives in camps (sent them to places like Oklahoma).

    1. Rubye, just as happened here with our Aborigines. Bit cheeky of the natives to get so uppity when foreigners come and take over their land. Look what we gave no, don't.

  3. Yes, please, DON'T look at what we gave them. Or didn't give them as the case may be.
    Moving on...I agree that keeping refugees in camps more than a month or so is a terrible waste. These people could be processed and integrated, getting jobs, earning a decent wage and paying taxes, their children could be getting educations and making friends from all nations. Within a generation, they'll be Aussies, eating pies with sauce at the footy with their mates.
    As for educating those in Third World countries, I make a monthly donation to a not-for-profit organisation which works to educate people in matters of health, (in particular for women and children), education and also helps to provide clean, safe drinking water, mosquito nets and malaria tablets as well as clothing and shoes, books etc. I'm in a better situation myself now, so want to do my bit to help others. I feel the need to "pay back" the help I received.

  4. Yes River, they will end up as you say, but how many of them should we take?

    I am pleased to learn of you monthly donation. My donations go towards local animal causes, more specifically, wild life and injured animal carers. Each to their own.

  5. Poor Andrew, you must be worried I will just blurt on and on now...

    I have no problem with people arriving paperless.
    Every boat drowning is a tragedy and I wish someone had a solution that is not brutal.

    One major concern for me is the mix of refugees we are opening our door to. As Vietnam was a former French colony, most V refugees were "westernised".
    In a completely different economic climate we are taking huge numbers from places like Afghanistan and must allow 2 or 3 generations before they can [in any large numbers] become employable, self-sufficient, reasonably assimilated, and contributing. That's fine I don't resent a cent.
    In the long run though it might be better and would definitely be fairer if we took a balancing number from e.g. African countries who have been waiting years longer.

    Agree the money wasted on this whole demonisation business is appalling and could be used to help many more people if used differently. Just one way would be to reverse Coalition decisions perpetuated by Labour e.g. about creating "service hubs" in outback areas. Indigenous Australians are being crapped on and ignored as usual while we try to meet ridiculous "UN" standards for refugees.
    Wrong, that's all. Just wrong. Our priorities are skewed but I guess that's politics. Morals are irrelevant when a vote is at stake.

  6. FC, it was post I hesitated about posting, actually written before your words, subsequently adapted.

    I agree it is the mix. Don't take too many from one country.

    I don't agree that most Vietnamese were Westernised. They had Chinese heritage and had money. In the later stages, yes, there were some more native types, but not too many.

    Isn't balancing the numbers what the authorities normally do?

    My dream are punctuated by 'the aboriginal problem', but I have no answers. Perhaps we ought to help out own local people before worrying so much about those from other places? Just a thought.

    1. I think we are supposed to believe the numbers are balanced, but this applies more to 'skilled' etc intakes relative to refugee intakes.
      A handful from some African States, but I expect most of our 'approved' refugee intake are from our own region.