[KaRzY6]

Asylum seekers, should they be entering our country illegally but still stay here? Your opinions, yes or no?

My Opinion:
Though they are humans and we should all be treated fair, that's not the case. I would like if everyone great given the great lives like we in Australia and other 1st world countries, but it's never going to happen (Just saying). Pensioners, who have lived here all there lives, get only like $250 a fortnight (correct me if I'm wrong). But an asylum seeker who enters the country illegally gets a $80 000, a house and job (again, correct me if I'm wrong). The more we let in, the more that come. In most countries around the world, if you enter the country illegally, you can get very harsh penileties. But Australia let's all come in, and the word is out. Then all of a sudden, heaps of boats carrying hundreds of people, head to Australia.

My opinion is, though I want the best life for everyone, they are entering illegally and don't deserve to live here.

Your thoughts everyone...

[Puzovesky]

QUOTE

if you enter the country illegally, you can get very harsh penileties.

Nope. The DREAM act in the U.S. would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country as long as they agree to participate in the equivalent of four years of college or serve in the military.

I don't think you'll be able to find many people who know much about Austrailian asylum seekers, but here's my view on illegal immigration in general.

Most people don't have a problem with legal immigration. The only difference between illegals and legals is that legals pay taxes. So if Austrailia acknowledges these asylum seekers they will most likely have to pay taxes. Furthermore some people say that they did something illegal so we shouldn't accomodate them, and while I disagree with the view that just because something is illegal it's bad there is a more important aspect to this particular debate. If they're seeking asylum, they most likely have a good reason, so the legality argument is out. And if they pay taxes the economic argument is out as well.

[Stefche]

You're acting as if they're draining our resources completely, denying Australian-born citizens of certain privileges. I mean, what the f*ck, $80,000 a year? Certain uni-grads in decent professions don't get that much, so whoever told you that they're getting $80k a year is obviously deluded.

Just compare how many refugees we intake compared to, say, Italy or the US. Pocket change. The only reason the issue gets so much attention is that it's perfect cannon-fodder for either the ALP or the Coalition to play with, even though behind-the-scenes they probably have the exact same personal opinions on the issue. The ALP have to appease the Greens, though, who are strictly against off-shore processing, but at the same time, they've subtly come to the conclusion that the only policy which is feasible in the long-term is the Coalition's policy circa Howard, since that pretty much drastically demolished demand for the people smuggler's business model, until Rudd went belly-up.

Having said that, though, the Coalition know that the ALP are slowly imploding and have almost got the next election in the bag (what, with the huge opposition to the carbon tax and everything), so Abbott and co are completely fine in stalling this until they can actually take action (post-2013).

Seriously, though, how is it bad for someone to want to migrate to another country? I don't appreciate the fact that they might be taking the place of a genuine refugee who legally arrives (as was the case with my mum), but that's why they have these detention centres which serve as a pretty effective filter to not only minorly punish them for "queue-jumping", but also to mitigate any potential security threats being let through into our community.

[KaRzY6]

QUOTE (Puzovesky @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 12:27)

QUOTE if you enter the country illegally, you can get very harsh penileties. Nope. The DREAM act in the U.S. would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country as long as they agree to participate in the equivalent of four years of college or serve in the military. I don't think you'll be able to find many people who know much about Austrailian asylum seekers, but here's my view on illegal immigration in general. Most people don't have a problem with legal immigration. The only difference between illegals and legals is that legals pay taxes. So if Austrailia acknowledges these asylum seekers they will most likely have to pay taxes. Furthermore some people say that they did something illegal so we shouldn't accomodate them, and while I disagree with the view that just because something is illegal it's bad there is a more important aspect to this particular debate. If they're seeking asylum, they most likely have a good reason, so the legality argument is out. And if they pay taxes the economic argument is out as well.

Some of that is very true.

QUOTE

QUOTE if you enter the country illegally, you can get very harsh penileties. Nope. The DREAM act in the U.S. would allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country as long as they agree to participate in the equivalent of four years of college or serve in the military.

^^By this, I sort of more meant 2nd and 3rd world countries.

[Melchior]

Is queue jumping really that unforgivable, especially with people who have been through oppression and whatnot? Just let them in the damn country, they're not going to change anything, and I've read American news articles comparing our detention centres to Guantanamo; it's an embarrassment.

[Stefche]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 12:48)

Is queue jumping really that unforgivable, especially with people who have been through oppression and whatnot? Just let them in the damn country, they're not going to change anything, and I've read American news articles comparing our detention centres to Guantanamo; it's an embarrassment.

Are you not in favour of monitoring "illegal" arrivals in the interests of national security? Not to jump on that anti-Islamic, "all dem towelhedz iz terroristz" bandwagon, but wouldn't detention-centre reform which makes approval more efficient and humane be justifiable?

[Melchior]

QUOTE (Stefche @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 11:54)

QUOTE (Melchior @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 12:48) Is queue jumping really that unforgivable, especially with people who have been through oppression and whatnot? Just let them in the damn country, they're not going to change anything, and I've read American news articles comparing our detention centres to Guantanamo; it's an embarrassment. Are you not in favour of monitoring "illegal" arrivals in the interests of national security? Not to jump on that anti-Islamic, "all dem towelhedz iz terroristz" bandwagon, but wouldn't detention-centre reform which makes approval more efficient and humane be justifiable?

Sure, but why does the monitoring process have to take several years spent in a detention centre?

[Stefche]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 13:03)

QUOTE (Stefche @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 11:54) QUOTE (Melchior @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 12:48) Is queue jumping really that unforgivable, especially with people who have been through oppression and whatnot? Just let them in the damn country, they're not going to change anything, and I've read American news articles comparing our detention centres to Guantanamo; it's an embarrassment. Are you not in favour of monitoring "illegal" arrivals in the interests of national security? Not to jump on that anti-Islamic, "all dem towelhedz iz terroristz" bandwagon, but wouldn't detention-centre reform which makes approval more efficient and humane be justifiable? Sure, but why does the monitoring process have to take several years spent in a detention centre?

Not saying it does, hence why I'd be glad if they actually reformed the process and made it less of a bureaucratic nightmare.

[KaRzY6]

Another thing that is bad about asylum seekers coming to Australia is money.

On the news they said that the government is spending about $20 000 000 to turn a old shooting range outside Hobart into a detention centre. To me, that money could be used to fix up roads in the countryside that are wore out, or fix up some schools and sh*t like that.....

But it's not just that, I reckon the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars, probably into the billions.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (KaRzY6 @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 12:11)

Another thing that is bad about asylum seekers coming to Australia is money. On the news they said that the government is spending about $20 000 000 to turn a old shooting range outside Hobart into a detention centre. To me, that money could be used to fix up roads in the countryside that are wore out, or fix up some schools and sh*t like that..... But it's not just that, I reckon the government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars, probably into the billions.

I this is where you and I differ - to me, $20 million (obviously not a real figure anyway) is chump change if it means helping people escape oppression and build a new life for their families.

[Stefche]

It is chump change, given that Australia's worth nearly a trillion dollars at purchasing power parity. The opportunity cost is minimal, too - a streamlined detention-centre network would provide far more benefit (material and non-material) to the local economy than the presence of a shooting range would.

Also, fix up schools? Rudd spent $16.2 billion on BER, not to mention all other initiatives which have been made to nationalise the education system over the past couple of years.

[Irviding]

Correction on the DREAM Act: Firstoff, it doesn't currently exist - not passed. Second, it would not give citizenship to people who AGREE, it gives PERMANENT RESIDENCY those who HAVE COMPLETED college or have already served in our military, and the precursor is that person ust have been here for at least five years. It is very complicated to explain unless you understand American immigration law, but basically you get temporary residency to serve in the military, or go to college after you've completed high school. That temporary residency lasts six years, and then during that time period you either serve in the military or get a degree from college. After that, you get PERMANENT RESIDENCY. Permanent residency is NOT citizenship by any means. One can go on to apply for citizenship after permanent residency, however. But again, this is not some blanket amnesty grant that people make it out to be.

Oh, and I'm not Australian, but I'll tell you right now that 80,000 dollars thing sounds like the biggest load of bullsh*t I've heard in a while.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (Irviding @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 14:20)

Oh, and I'm not Australian, but I'll tell you right now that 80,000 dollars thing sounds like the biggest load of bullsh*t I've heard in a while.

The media also likes to pretend that the government houses refugees in four star resorts.

[Heisenberg]

The media also likes to give you the impression that fertility of soil is fixed, and you're entitled to land by birth. Let's not foget that politics responds to environment, and not the other way around. As the planet's climate changes, mass hordes of people migrate. Humans of today may be technologically superior than what we were centuries ago, but our common needs for survival remain: the right temperature to sustain water and fertile land for food. Thus, consider what a common response to a lack of either could result in.

The answer for mankind is to create as many hospatible locations on earth as possible, with (ignoring primary rapid growth) 0% growth rates. Not gun them down over the Mediterranean and prevent them from leaving their infertile lands.

[Robinski]

I think you really need to decide whether this topic is simply about illegal immigrants or specifically about asylum seekers. That's an important distinction.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Robinski @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 14:29)

I think you really need to decide whether this topic is simply about illegal immigrants or specifically about asylum seekers. That's an important distinction.

Indeed it is. Right of asylum is protected under the United National Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is an entirely separate entity to the vast majority of illegal immigration.

[Heisenberg]

Legally speaking indeed, but let's not beat about the bush here, they're fundamentally the same concept.

[Puzovesky]

QUOTE (Heisenberg @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 21:46)

Legally speaking indeed, but let's not beat about the bush here, they're fundamentally the same concept.

Murder and assault are both violence. Just because something is in the same category doesn't mean clarification isn't helpful.

[Heisenberg]

QUOTE (Puzovesky @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 21:55)

QUOTE (Heisenberg @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 21:46) Legally speaking indeed, but let's not beat about the bush here, they're fundamentally the same concept. Murder and assault are both violence. Just because something is in the same category doesn't mean clarification isn't helpful.

The division is artificial, the mere difference between a man migrating illegally to an asylum seeker is legal recognition. The problem is, one requires war for such status, which just strikes me as a golden ticket for few, when civilian casualties typically greatly outnumber military deaths. This division neglects the legitimacy of escaping poverty, the root cause of conflict.

[Melchior]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Dec 23 2011, 00:16)

QUOTE (Robinski @ Thursday, Dec 22 2011, 14:29) I think you really need to decide whether this topic is simply about illegal immigrants or specifically about asylum seekers. That's an important distinction. Indeed it is. Right of asylum is protected under the United National Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and is an entirely separate entity to the vast majority of illegal immigration.

So why is this an issue?