Waleed Aly at ABC Religion and Ethics, 10 August 2012, at

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles ... 565015.htm

concludes that 'however much our politicians want to protect asylum seekers, or protect the nation that so bizarrely fears them, they want most of all to protect themselves'.

Do you agree? Have your say on the Forum.

I admire Waleed Aly.
Once again, his ability to put his thoughts to paper/screen has me dazzled.

Should you read this comment, make sure you read his article.

I can understand that politicians are sometimes forced to fall in line with the party mantra and compromise on their personal opinions. It is part of joining or belonging any political party.

What I detest is the collective acceptance of political gamesmanship on asylum seekers.

So, Waleed is 100% on the mark, Australian politicians are protecting themselves.

How could it change?

Scenario 1:
A landslide election for a party and a gutsy, charismatic Premier, willing to put an end to the situation.
- Highly unlikely.

Scenario 2:
Waiting for a shift in the Australian collective conscience, away from the current self-centred, egomaniac culture. - Highly unlikely

Scenario 3:
An enormous amount of grass roots work, a willingness of main stream media to debunk previous
scare campaigns and hype. - Tedious, still unlikely but possible

However judging by the activity on this board, the day, Australians hold politicians to account, is a long way away.

Are the asylum seekers being unethical?

If they are political seeking asylum from say Afghanistan then once they get to Indonesia why aren't they staying there. Why press on to yet another country once the immediate threat has ended.

Well maybe having reached Indonesia, asylum seekers from Afghanistan are unable to make a home and future there, they just face a future of further persecution and poverty.

Christine,

Economic refugees are not entitled to asylum status as I read the rules. Why would political asylum seekers from Afghanistan fear religious persecution in Indonesia. I believe it is the largest Moslem country in the world by population.

Correct, economic refugees are not entitled to seek asylum.
I've met some very recently arrived Hazari Afghani asylum seekers. They've been persecuted because of their race not their religion. They're easily identified by their mongolian facial features and are routinely killed by bomb and gun attacks in Pakistan where they have now fled from from Afghanistan.
Arrivals in Indonesia without pockets full of cash are not welcome the way tourists are. No one assists newcomers berefit of posessions to survive, they're resented as competitors for resources, and badly treated by the police. Religion is not the issue, as some may wish to imagine.

Christine,

It sounds like you are saying that Australians (pols and people) are unethical because they abide by the letter of the law, while Indonesia is ethical because they make the asylum seekers feel unwelcome because they are competing for resources.

The media accounts I have seen dispute the fact that these people are arriving in Indonesia bereft of resources, as they are paying large sums for passage from Indonesia to Oz.

No I don't think Indonesia is ethical. I think Australia is ethical, we're a far better, more compassionate society and asylum seekers recognise it. Many asylum seekers take out loans to pay for their passage here, they're not wealthy people.
Our governments have been responsible for much of the refugee problem. Their political alliances have played a large part in the refugee problem. For instance there's the case of Iraq, and also our government's support for Mahinda Rajapakksa of Sri Lanka and the way it lets the persecution of the Tamil people go on unabated.
Boat people are the entrepeneurs of the world's most powerless people; those with no home.

on the question are politicians protecting themselves?

They do! Even after they left office...

Case in point, Peter Reid.

Virgina Trioli sets the record straight.
"Reith rewrites history to hide the shame of children overboard lie"

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... 255u3.html

Christine,

I don't know of any reputable lending institution that would permit these individuals to borrow the amounts of money I've seen bandied about in the media without collateral to cover the loans. My first thoughts of this scenario is it smacks of human trafficking, and I think it would be highly unethical to aid/abet such a thing

I'm thinking that the real attraction is the welfare state available in Oz and other western countries, that provides a living without having to work for it. I suspect the people who are supporting this largesse with their tax dollars might be a bit resentful of both the politicians who permit it and the emigres who take advantage of it.

MAWIMike
You're right, no reputable lending insititution would lend money to someone with no collateral, but a dispreputable one, or a relative would.
I'm closely involved with some members of the Sri Lankan Tamil community and have helped several Tamil asylum seekers find jobs over the past two years.
I know Tamil asylum seekers, who've been found to be refugees and who are now working as cleaners, in bakeries, smash repair shops and food processing factories. Several work in a large local truck radiator factory, some also in air conditioning installation and repair businesses. They usually do jobs native Australian's turn their noses up at, and they don't have the "sicky" mentality.
I took one Tamil man for an interview at Kailis Brothers a few months back, he'd come to Perth because he was unable to find a job in Melbourne. He wore a spotless white business shirt and was overjoyed when he got a job on the night shift as a cleaner in Kailis Brothers fish processing plant. He travels the five kilometres to work, and back home again at 1 am on a bicycle. I'd be happy if my own two sons had half this guy's work ethic.
The government of Sri Lanka has a policy of ethnic cleansing against the Tamils. Their leader Mahinda Rajapaksa's son Nomal assists Tamils to leave the country via boats. Yes, you heard right, their leader's son is a people smuggler. I've heard this fact from several different sources now.
If you are able to come to Perth MAWIMike, I'd be more than happy to introduce you to these men.

Christine,

You appear to be describing legitimate asylum seekers.

I have no problem with legal immigrants, as my wife is an immigrant (and now citizen) and our adopted daughter is also a legal immigrant.

I have a real heartburn with illegal immigrants and queue jumpers as many of these asylum seekers appear to be as they are economic refugees, not covered by policy.

Hi Mike,



could you please qualify the term "many", how much is many ?

Or could you please enlighten me on where I can get some figures on "economic refugees"

Thanks

interogativus

My definition of many is more than five.

An illegal immigrant in the United States is a (non-citizen) who has entered the United States without government permission and in violation of United States Nationality Law, or stayed beyond the termination date of a visa, also in violation of the law.
The illegal immigrant population of the United States in 2008 was estimated by the Center for Immigration Studies to be about 11 million people, down from 12.5 million people in 2007.[1] Other estimates range from 7 to 20 million.[2] According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, in 2005, 56% of illegal immigrants were from Mexico; 22% were from other Latin American countries, primarily from Central America;[3] 13% were from Asia; 6% were from Europe and Canada; and 3% were from Africa and the rest of the world.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_im ... ted_States

Estimates by Region and Country of Birth
An estimated 8.9 million (77 percent) of the total 11.5 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in 2011 were from North America, including Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central America (see Figure 2). The next leading regions of origin were Asia (1.3 million) and South America (0.8 million). Between 2000 and 2011, the greatest increase in the unauthorized population occurred among natives of North America (2.8 million).
Mexico continued to be the leading source country of unauthor-ized immigration to the United States (see Table 3). There were 6.8 million unauthorized immigrants from Mexico in 2011, repre-senting 59 percent of the unauthorized population

http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/stat ... e_2011.pdf
AUSTRALIA has enough illegal immigrants on the loose to populate a large regional city.
MOST illegal immigrants arrive on tourist or temporary work visas, documents released under Freedom of Information reveal.

VICTORIANS have every right to be concerned about the fact there are almost 60,000 foreign citizens living illegally in Australia.
A Herald Sun investigation has found that nearly 60,000 people - one in every 390 - is in the country unlawfully, sparking renewed calls for a crackdown.
The 58,400 foreign citizens hiding illegally among us easily outnumber the populations of Mildura or Shepparton - Victoria's fifth and sixth biggest cities.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victor ... 6200621996

Ok Mike, thanks for the links.

Let me throw some figures into the ring.
I've compiled them from the world bank website and "almighty Google", the figures are from 2011.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG

I've picked Canada, I hope you agree, it's very similar to Oz in size and population
And on the other end of the spectrum I selected Austria, in terms of size it is only 1/10 of NSW, and really tiny compared to Canada or Australia, plus it has heaps of uninhabitable, but beautiful Mountains, which makes liveable land area even smaller.

If you look at the figures below, you'll see that Austria takes double the amount of refugees and Canada almost 8 times as many.

Australia
Population: 22,620,600
Size of country: 7,741,000km2
Refugee intake: 21,805

Austria
Population: 8,419,000
Size of country: 83,870km2
Refugee intake: 42,630

Canada
Population: 34,482,779
Size of country: 9,985,000km2
Refugee intake: 165,549

What does that say about Australia as a nation?
Whenever I am asked that question, I have no answer.
I can't blame it on the politicians because the counter argument is: "Well mate, you guys vote them in."
After reading Waleed Aly's article though, I have a way out.
I now can blame it on the crafty politicians, who manipulate us voters with scare tactics, to ensure we keep them in their jobs and the refugee problem remains unsolved.

And finally on the Herald Sun "investigation" there is a difference, between an illegal immigrant and a refugee. They are talking about people overstaying visas etc.
The other 2 excerpts contribute little to the situation in Australia, I think.

We are talking about desperate people who risk everything, split up their family, to escape a war, religious or political prosecution, on the slim chance they might make it to Australia to have shot of a better life for themselves.
Of course not everyone is the same, and there are certainly some shady characters amongst refugees as well. I would still say the majority of refugees actually turn into an asset for Australian society.

Looking forward to your thoughts.

inti

Why not eliminate the whole concept of a refugee and rights of resettlement. Start by eliminating the UNHCR. Then have the UN address the root cause and eliminate it rather than treating symptoms/outcome. Until the root cause is corrected, the flow of refugees won't abate. Fix the hole in the dam rather than trying to mop up the flood plain.

You are wrong . Think again over his remark.

@MAWIMike


You are right. Until the root cause is corrected, there will be no end to people migration and refugee streams across continents.
So how do we achieve world peace? That would be the next logical question, I think.

However the original question in this thread was:
'however much our politicians want to protect asylum seekers, or protect the nation that so bizarrely fears them, they want most of all to protect themselves'
Do you agree?


@Appotgockat
Who do you think is wrong?