laurie said...

Enjoy life folks. Seabreeze is for lighthearted fun.

Saffer said...

I think most of them are economic refugees. Real refugees don't have $10k per head. That aside, interesting that in the latest news, a whole bunch of them opted to go back to Sri Lanka rather than go to Nauru. Now, I'm just guessing, but if you're at risk of persecution and you're offered a chance to go stay somewhere free from persecution in less than ideal conditions, wouldn't you opt for the less than idea conditions?

It's easier to get to Europe from Sri Lanka than from Nauru.
But yes, one would suspect that refugees fleeing prosecution and war would not have that sort of cash to spend on a -5star boat trip.

evlPanda said...

^ Why wouldn't they have that kind of money? Refugees can be wealthy professionals too. Doctors, business owners, architects, politicians. $5K isn't an incredible sum.

A 5 star trip? Are you for real?

Always amazes me how ignorant the world is about the rest of the world. I've had German associates come here and are genuinely amazed that we have a society way down here. Modern lives. I've got older in-laws that honestly think in Australia we live in a bush shack with no running water.

My assumption is based on people that live in refugee camps.
In many cases people that are prosecuted in a country or are fleeing war, the ones to leave to country first are generally the wealthier ones, doctors, politicians, people with successful businesses. These come generally by plane.
Those that get trapped are generally the less fortunate ones.
I have worked with refugees in europe for a short while and that is what I base my assumption on. You?
..and if you read correctly it's a (-)Minus 5 star trip.

evlPanda said...

^ Why wouldn't they have that kind of money? Refugees can be wealthy professionals too. Doctors, business owners, architects, politicians. $5K isn't an incredible sum.

A 5 star trip? Are you for real?

Always amazes me how ignorant the world is about the rest of the world. I've had German associates come here and are genuinely amazed that we have a society way down here. Modern lives. I've got older in-laws that honestly think in Australia we live in a bush shack with no running water.

You obviously haven't been or lived in any of these countries. The value of currency is different.

In Sri Lanka, $10K is a lot of money (its $10K per head for the boat trip). Its the equivalent of $70K or more in Australia. The average salary in Sri Lanka is about $10K per year. Take off your tax and you'll get an idea of how high that is. Twice the annual salary per person. So if you're a family, you're paying $140K (Aus equivalent) in pre tax money per person for a boat trip.

Now, lets put this into perspective for you. There seem to be a lot of people who either have the Aussie equivalent of about $300K cash in hand, or people seem to have the time to sell their houses, cars etc, which is not really the environment you would expect a refugee to be in. I.e. if you were subject to persecution, would you hang around long enough to sell all your belongings for a healthy sum of money or would you just flee. My guess is flee. If you look at the refugees fleeing from germany in the second world war, 99.9999% of them would have left with just the clothes on their back and a suitcase if they were lucky. Thats what you do when you're fleeing for your life. Just like when a plane crashes, you don't hang around and wait for your luggage from the cargo hold.

I'm pretty sure the 5 star comment was sarcasm.

So what are we saying here? "I'm sorry, you're too rich to be a refugee?" Really? "All the refugees I've seen on TV are starving and have flies all over them. You don't appear very legitimate."

Saffer said...
If you look at the refugees fleeing from germany in the second world war, 99.9999% of them would have left with just the clothes on their back and a suitcase if they were lucky.

And the other 0.1% or whatever went by whatever better means they could. Currently in the world there are how many refugees, and we are talking about a few hundred?

People don't risk the lives of their family very readily. Nor all their savings.

Of course there are some people cheating the system, but shutting it down because of them is akin to bringing in or continuing the death sentence because only a few innocent people are executed each year.

hmmm then instead of spending billions on stopping/accommodating refugees perhaps using the money providing a safer haven at the point of origin and making sure there would be money better spent? Dealing with the issue instead of investing money to patch the loophole created by "human rights" considerations that created a situation where people are encouraged to take drastic measures such as putting their lives at risk on a boat.

I'm not Australian but my opinion is (based on my european outlook on such matters) that if words come out that if you hop into a boat you have a chance for a better life then people will come, hence a policy of no acceptance and losing right to claim if illegally entering the country would stop the boat: my understanding is that this was the way before and it worked, lead to some tragedies and then was repelled and now you have thousands boarding boats every week.

There are plenty real refugees that do face repression and death threats in their own countries and there is no disregarding the fact that it is impossible to ignore and not be emotionally involved with their plight but displacement of populations is not the solution either, it makes extremism rise in the hosts countries (out of ignorance sure) and creates unrest and fear in the civilian population creating reactionary polls that lead to a radicalization in the urns... usually pretty bad things happen then...

The most humane thing to do (I believe) is having a strong legislation that make you ineligible to refugee status if you enter illegally (if you have a visa and fail its terms in this country it's what happens to you by the way) BUT then a whole array of partnerships with countries where immigration comes from to guarantee protection of claimers. Funding of NGOs with the purpose of protecting, sorting, evaluating and help rebuild, relocate, disarm or whatever is required to help a population settle again.

The worst is that this boat issue arises because of the weak legislation created by human rights concerns that in the end puts humans at risks. It is not racist, backwards, inhumane to stop people entering this country illegally by setting rules which in the end protect people from smugglers. These guys are a mafia, they use and abuse poor desperate people to enrich themselves (not speaking about those poor fishermen that drive the boats but the ring leaders) and are usually untouchable.

I want to highlight the problem of legislation being morally right but stupid with another example from Europe: Prostitution. I'm against it, never used it but... In France it's illegal because it is immoral and reprehensible, but the demand is there and offer there as well (I guess the same in most countries) Now it makes it an illegal business with high returns therefore attractive to organised crime, these organisations then "import" girls from eastern Europe that get broken into it and become sexual slaves with no recognition, protection, IDs... So in the name of what is deemed morally right we have a law that encourages sexual slavery and profit organised crime. I much prefer a system where prostitution is legal, organised where the humans are cared for and protected (I believe this is the case in Australia?) than our system that may be "morally right" but creates so much human suffering...

felixdcat said...

^^^^^ very well said^^^^^ +1

cheerz... if i become Australian I'm getting into politics.

Pas de probleme mon ami!

Oh non! je comprends pas...

dafrog said...
The most humane thing to do (I believe) is having a strong legislation that make you ineligible to refugee status if you enter illegally...

Well said, except that the boat people, that are seeking refugee status, are not entering Australia illegally, because they are seeking refugee status. Are you suggesting we overrule international refugee conventions and such? As a potential politician better start getting used to the conundrum.

I mean, just think. If you're sitting in a detention centre you're hardly an immigrant. And you're not illegal or legal anything. You're in limbo.

If your refugee claim is accepted you become a refugee, a legal immigrant.
Else you go back to where you came from.

There's no third option. There's no illegal immigration going on here. There's far more from the type of thing in the post above.

evlPanda said...
[br.....
I've got older in-laws that honestly think in Australia we live in a bush shack with no running water.

You mean you don't??
You were lucky. I used to dream of living in a bush shack with no running water.

pweedas said...

evlPanda said...
[br.....
I've got older in-laws that honestly think in Australia we live in a bush shack with no running water.

You mean you don't??
You were lucky. I used to dream of living in a bush shack with no running water.

Thats luxuary, we were happy if we had a palm leaf next to a puddle

felixdcat said...

Need to make a difference between refugees that are fleeing political, religious, racial....... persecution and economical refugees that are looking for a better lifestyle! The second group should be sent back the same day!
I went back to Europe in February and when i came out of the plane (in Switzerland) I found that the federal police was doing passport checks directly after the plane gate, I was told that if you had no passport you would not be able to leave the plane and sent back to your departure. People destroy the documents so they can't be found to be economical refugees and sent back.

I'm from the swiss border (next to Geneva) and that's one country that has absolutely no patience with refugees... unless they have lots of money, works well for them they got the UN!... Seriously those guys have some of the toughest policies in the world.

dafrog said...

evlPanda said...

dafrog said...
The most humane thing to do (I believe) is having a strong legislation that make you ineligible to refugee status if you enter illegally...

Well said, except that the boat people, that are seeking refugee status, are not entering Australia illegally, because they are seeking refugee status. Are you suggesting we overrule international refugee conventions and such? As a potential politician better start getting used to the conundrum.

I mean, just think. If you're sitting in a detention centre you're hardly an immigrant. And you're not illegal or legal anything. You're in limbo.

If your refugee claim is accepted you become a refugee, a legal immigrant.
Else you go back to where you came from.

There's no third option. There's no illegal immigration going on here. There's far more from the type of thing in the post above.

Entering a country uninvited is illegal... ...

Not true. The refugee convention says it's ok to enter a county uninvited and then put up your hand to claim refugee status. This is not illegal.