And the boats keep coming

[bit_pattern]

Of course it is tragic when asylum seekers die in a desperate attempt to reach protection. It is also tragic when they stay behind and are slaughtered. The key difference is that, when they stay behind and become another statistic in the grim arithmetic of ethnic cleansing, we do not empathise with them; our conscience remains untouched. When we learn that they have perished in an attempt to seek safety here, it seems different.

Why is that? Is it because they have tried to engage us? Is it because the ethics of proximity has begun to operate, so that we feel a heightened sense of responsibility for them? Is it simply because, in the unhealthy environment of current domestic politics, their fate is automatically drawn to our attention by politicians trying to exploit the occasion for their own political advantage?

If you had been a Jew in Germany in 1939, would it have been better to chance your arm with a people smuggler (Schindler, Bonnhoeffer, Schroeder...) or stay put and avoid the risk? And which is more tragic: to die passively or die in an attempt to escape? One thing is certain: if the Taliban get you, you are just as dead as if you drown.

Most Australians have trouble understanding what it means to put your life in the hands of a people smuggler, or why anyone would do it. Try to imagine that you are a refugee: you are part of an ethnic minority in Afghanistan. Your people are the target of ethnic cleansing. You have friends and family members who have been killed by Taliban snipers and suicide bombers. You know children who were blown to bits when the Taliban used them as mine-sweepers. You know of the teenager who was forced back to Afghanistan from Nauru in 2002 and who was hunted down by the Taliban: when they found him in his village, they dragged him out of his house and threw him down the village well, and a hand grenade was dropped in after him.

You have borrowed enough money to get to Australia: it is cheaper than getting to Europe or America. With your family you make your way to Indonesia, passing through Muslim countries which allow free passage to Muslims, but they do not offer protection because they have not signed the Refugees’ Convention.

In Indonesia you can go to the UNHCR and get a card which vouches that you are a refugee, but it doesn’t mean much because the Indonesian government will jail you if they find you, and you aren’t allowed to work, and you can’t send your kids to school. You will wait in the shadows until some country offers to resettle you. It could take 10 or 20 years.

There is one line of escape: you can pay a people smuggler who will take you to Australia by boat. It is dangerous, but it is a chance for freedom and safety, for you and for your kids.

Imagine yourself there. What would you do?

What would most Australians do? What would our political leaders do, if they were in that position?

http://julianburnside.com.au/boats.htm

 

[a_unique_person]

It's only a problem if they try to come here, apparently, otherwise, there is no problem.

 

[Wildy]

It's only a problem if they try to come here, apparently, otherwise, there is no problem.

Exactly. They should just stay in Malaysia or Indonesia despite the fact that they'd have no rights in those countries. Apparently the people who don't want these people to come to Australia don't seem to care about that, but they only start to care about rights when we want to do a people swap with one of these countries.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Exactly. They should just stay in Malaysia or Indonesia despite the fact that they'd have no rights in those countries. Apparently the people who don't want these people to come to Australia don't seem to care about that, but they only start to care about rights when we want to do a people swap with one of these countries.

Untrue. The problem has always been about the deaths at sea - which you once again ignore - and the unfairness of the situation to those that do not have the money and means to come here by boat e.g. African refugees that are effectively landlocked and similarly have no rights in those countries either.

The issue for me is around:
- People dying.
- People queue jumping.
- smugglers making millions from the misery of others.

The last few posts are dishonest imo.

 

[Wildy]

Untrue.

Right so you didn't say:

I agree. He was quite safe where he was - somewhere between Iran and Australia. He could apply for asylum virtually anywhere and wait his turn like other around the world.

The problem has always been about the deaths at sea - which you once again ignore...

Prove this accusation or retract it.

... - and the unfairness of the situation to those that do not have the money and means to come here by boat e.g. African refugees that are effectively landlocked and similarly have no rights in those countries either.

Which countries are "those countries"? Are you talking about places like Indonesia or Malaysia or places in Africa?

And since you like bringing this point up, I'm going to ask some questions that you've refused to answer:

In what order will you process them? Will it be 'all asylum claims' then 'resettlement applications' or will it be 'plane arrivals', 'resettlement applications', 'boat people' or will it be 'resettlement applications' then 'all asylum claims'?

The issue for me is around:
- People dying.
- People queue jumping.
- smugglers making millions from the misery of others.

If that's the case then why don't you make actual arguments instead of just using empty rhetoric?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Right so you didn't say:

You said "only start to care about rights when we want to do a people swap with one of these countries."

The "only part is absolutely untrue.

The problem has always been about the deaths at sea - which you once again ignore...

Prove this accusation or retract it.

Where did you mention the deaths in that post exactly? You didn't, you ignored it, dishonest.

 

[amb]

Amb, how would it be "rightly so" if the graphs demonstrate otherwise? Can't you see the glaring contradictions in your flimsy sensationalism?

You're from Western Australia, and I presume you read the only local daily newspaper. But I'll quote you what a survivor of this tragedy says about the "floodgates" been open: I quote.............."Everyone is coming because the border IS OPEN,"he said "Everyone is going there and they are being accepted. If Australia does not want asylum seekers to come to Australia by boat, it is a better way to close all the borders and then no one will come. We will do it again. Because we have nothing. If we are going to die, our responsibility will be with the Australian government." End quote. The asylum seeker is Asmat Adine. Make no mistake, these people are not refugees, they are blatant queue jumpers who are overriding the the system.

 

[philkensebben]

You're from Western Australia, and I presume you read the only local daily newspaper. But I'll quote you what a survivor of this tragedy says about the "floodgates" been open: I quote.............."Everyone is coming because the border IS OPEN,"he said "Everyone is going there and they are being accepted. If Australia does not want asylum seekers to come to Australia by boat, it is a better way to close all the borders and then no one will come. We will do it again. Because we have nothing. If we are going to die, our responsibility will be with the Australian government." End quote. The asylum seeker is Asmat Adine. Make no mistake, these people are not refugees, they are blatant queue jumpers who are overriding the the system.

Why would you believe anything he says? I thought you distrusted them

 

[nvidiot]

I'm from WA too, and wouldn't wipe my behind with that rag. Makes the daily fail look positively fact-checked.

And the border isn't "open". There isn't a giant fence we can erect. We're a freaking island. Other countries treating asylum seekers badly doesn't make it justifiable that we do too.

 

[Wildy]

You said "only start to care about rights when we want to do a people swap with one of these countries."

The "only part is absolutely untrue.

Really? Because the bit I quoted certainly seems to suggest that you don't care about the rights of these people when they aren't in Australia.

Where did you mention the deaths in that post exactly? You didn't, you ignored it, dishonest.

I've made many posts in this thread, perhaps you should be a little more specific? But then you're just grasping at straws here.

I also see that you've once again decided to avoid answering my questions about which order we should process claims. Why is that exactly? I'm guessing you're once again being dishonest, which makes your accusations against me of being dishonest a little hypocritical don't you think?

 

[amb]

So, all newspapers that print stories that go against your ideology are crap! Yes, I understand now. Sometimes in the city there are some fringe papers available from weird looking guys. Perhaps that's more your style of newsprint.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Really? Because the bit I quoted certainly seems to suggest that you don't care about the rights of these people when they aren't in Australia.

Then you would be wrong .... again.

I've made many posts in this thread, perhaps you should be a little more specific? But then you're just grasping at straws here.

The straw is all yours, as is the straw questions you are asking that I am not answering.

Your post was dishonest imo, if it was honest you would address the issue of the deaths rather than make untrue claims.

 

[nvidiot]

So, all newspapers that print stories that go against your ideology are crap! Yes, I understand now. Sometimes in the city there are some fringe papers available from weird looking guys. Perhaps that's more your style of newsprint.

I used to read papers, dare I say it on this forum, religiously.

I would also read papers diametrically opposed to my personal politics, to deliberately challenge my views. I subsequently worked out that such papers as the Australian and the West Australian are not interested in the facts or journalism, but only in pushing political ideology in the guise of such.

The fact that the Green Left Weekly is horribly biased crap doesn't come into it. I don't read that either nowadays.

 

[amb]

I find the West a neutral source of news. Perhaps it's because I don't look for any bias.

 

[Wildy]

Then you would be wrong .... again.

So, for example, you don't believe that they should be denied access to our courts? Or that they should be denied the right to asylum as you have suggested in this thread?

The straw is all yours, as is the straw questions you are asking that I am not answering.

If you're just going to write them off as "straw questions" then that tells me that you're being dishonest. One of the questions I had asked you was for clarification, but then I guess doing that is also "straw".

I remember you saying that you're a public speaker. If that's indeed the case I suggest that you stop using rhetoric and try using logic.

Your post was dishonest imo, if it was honest you would address the issue of the deaths rather than make untrue claims.

Then you would be wrong... again.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So, for example, you don't believe that they should be denied access to our courts? Or that they should be denied the right to asylum as you have suggested in this thread?

As a deterrent to them dying at sea I think that's fine. But these are just supporting arguments. You would rather use the cowards way and infer some racist undertones in this suggestion, rather than the true point, saving people from themselves and unscrupulous people smugglers.

If you're just going to write them off as "straw questions" then that tells me that you're being dishonest.

They are straw as they have nothing to do with the issues I am discussing except as a side show. You want to meander down that stream go right ahead, there is nothing dishonest about me not following.

Then you would be wrong... again.

If I was wrong, you would be discussing the real issue here; that of people dying at sea and what could be done to stop these predictable tragedies.

Fail.

 

[amb]

Should it not also be clarified that these are not refugees, they are queue jumpers. The real refugees can't afford over $10.000 to get here, real refugees are rotting in refugee camps somewhere in Africa.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Should it not also be clarified that these are not refugees, they are queue jumpers. The real refugees can't afford over $10.000 to get here, real refugees are rotting in refugee camps somewhere in Africa.

I would hate to make an overgeneralisation along those lines; many are in fact genuine, others are economic refugees and opportunists. Another reason for offshore processing is to determine who is and isn't what, rather than be left with fait accompli. This ensures that limited spaces are available for those equally (or even more) deserving that have waited their turn in the proverbial queue.

 

[lionking]

Should it not also be clarified that these are not refugees, they are queue jumpers. The real refugees can't afford over $10.000 to get here, real refugees are rotting in refugee camps somewhere in Africa.

Hang on, you have said you don't want any immigration at all. Stop these crocodile tears for African refugees.

 

[amb]

I was using sarcasm. Fighting fire with fire. I have nothing against REAL refugees been taken here in an orderly fashion.