Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Lab Assistant
Original Poster
#1 Old 4th Jul 2014 at 3:59 PM
Default Should asylum seekers be allowed to come to Australia?
Asylum seekers are fleeing from their war Biden countries to come to Australia where is is safe. Tony Abott has made a shout to stop the boats but why?

People are already risking their lives to get to this country and he is sending them to a refugee camp which is basically prison. So to top it all off he is pretty much imprisoning them for trying not to get killed. There are wars in countries where people are running to save their souls. He is saying he is doing all he can to stop those wars but is he really?

As a matter of fact no, he is not putting in the entire effort. He is not seeing what I am, the wars will NOT stop if there are still no laws to say that asylum seekers are welcome to this country. Because it is just being extremely rude! Some people do not have very much money. They can be in situations where they cannot get a ride over to Australia. So they get a boat. But why should others not be allowed to come here just because they had to use different transportation.

In the future, there may be wars and other stuff in Australia. Real leaders wouldn't let that happen. But it is all happening because of Tony Abott. Eventually people are going to look back on what will be history, they will seek revenge.

Have your say about the boat people!
Are you convinced or do you have a different opinion?
Express yourself and share it in the comments!
Advertisement
Field Researcher
#2 Old 14th Sep 2014 at 12:40 AM
I'm gonna say what I'm gonna say, but know that I'm totally not from Australia.

While I can't see the basis for denying another human being asylum, I'm also very ignorant on the legalistic back side of these types of things. While Tony Abbott is generally pretty horrible, unless specific laws can be called into question to shed negative light on his actions, one can't completely denounce him. There's a lot in the law books I'm sure the average Joe just isn't aware of.

Also, I can understand wanting asylum seekers to come in a specific way & turning them away if they don't. At the end of the day, he's prime minister. It's his job, in all of his conservative glory, to keep things running as smoothly as he knows how. IIRC asylum seekers are granted immunity to extraction; that's a lot of legal power to grant someone. I can understand wanting to be especially cautious.

As for war, eh. Good leader or not, people are people & where there are humans, conflict is inevitable. Bad leaders only speed the process up.

Queen of the Land of Typos.

Check out my simblr.
Scholar
#3 Old 14th Sep 2014 at 1:40 AM Last edited by TotallyJW : 14th Sep 2014 at 1:51 AM.
I don't mean to sound like an asshole, but you're simplifying things way too much here.
And honestly.. I think there'll always be wars. We're a territorial species. Even if all the nations in the world joined up in a great big peace circle to hold hands and sing Kumbaya, we'd still find some way to fuck it up. So while I don't necessarily agree with this Tony fellow, you can't just say that he's solely responsible for wars because he's shutting off immigration.

“I MAY BE A HOGWARTS STUDENT" Hargirid paused angrily. "BUT I AM ALSO A SATANIST!”
Falco - The original Prombat
Top Secret Researcher
#4 Old 15th Sep 2014 at 7:23 PM
Well, I'm not from Australia. Let's send all the asylum seekers there! :D

Seriously, there are a number of problems with accepting everyone without reservation. Once they're there, what are their job prospects? How many of them speak English well enough to get a customer service job? How many are skilled enough for the higher-level jobs, or can afford to pay for those skills? Even if they do, most of their experience would be back in their country of origin, where there's a bit of a war going on. It might be a bit difficult to verify their resume.
How will it affect the economy to have an increase in the demand for jobs?

How about housing? I've heard that Australia has housing problems as it is. You'll have an increased need for low-income housing, homeless shelters, etc.

Health issues? When you're fleeing from a war, hygiene tends to fall to the bottom of the priorities list. They probably won't be in the best condition when they reach your shores. And a lot of people, crowded together with low hygiene and weakened immune systems for days or weeks? Excellent conditions for a plague.

For that matter, I assume people fleeing a war zone will have psychological issues, like PTSD. I've heard that Australia is not very therapy-friendly, but I could be wrong. These people would need help. Is your country capable of providing that?

And how about food? With increased demand for food, it could cause the prices to go up. If the refugees can't get a job, then they'd have to go on any food-stamp programs you guys have. With the increased costs, that could get more expensive very quickly.
So, how much is that going to cost the government? They'd have to pay for the housing, food, healthcare, and miscellaneous costs of the refugees. And where does that money come from? They'd have to either increase taxes or decrease spending elsewhere. Would you rather take a cut from your paycheck or lose government funding for education, road repairs, public upkeep, law enforcement, etc.?

This is mostly based on my own country, since I'm not very involved in the Australian political scene. There could be more nuances to this.

Is it the humane thing to do, taking in these refugees? Most likely. Is it the right thing to do? Well, are the majority of Australians willing to take in the refugees? Make those sacrifices for outsiders? If not, then you're simply shifting the costs of war onto more people. You might be willing, but if most people thought the same, wouldn't the Prime Minister have already bowed to their wishes?
The Great AntiJen
retired moderator
#5 Old 15th Sep 2014 at 10:40 PM
I think there may be confusion over the difference between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants. Asylum Seekers are, by definition, people who are fleeing danger, life-threatening danger. It would seem to me to be uncivilised to refuse aid in cases like that. Economic migrants, on the other hand, are trying to move to gain better economic opportunities which is understandable but not always welcome in host countries who have their own economic problems.

I no longer come over to MTS very often but if you would like to ask me a question then you can find me on tumblr or my own site tflc. TFLC has an archive of all my CC downloads.
I'm here on tumblr and my site, tflc
Née whiterider
retired moderator
#6 Old 16th Sep 2014 at 1:23 AM
Yeah, I can't ever get behind the "These people are fleeing war, terrorism, famine, and general suffering and death... but if they all come over here our taxes might increase by a few pennies/cents/whatever! Boo fuckin' hoo!" attitude. Honestly, anyone who is trying to put economic hardship caused by large-scale immigration in the same league as the horrors that asylum seekers are fleeing, is either woefully ignorant or just completely self-involved.

Incidentally, international law mandates that pretty much every country accept asylum seekers - not necessarily migrants, but asylum seekers and refugees - because asylum is often the only way for a person or group to have any kind of future.

What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.
Top Secret Researcher
#7 Old 16th Sep 2014 at 11:24 AM
Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Seriously, there are a number of problems with accepting everyone without reservation.


Accepting everyone is a separate issue. This thread is referring to people who go to a country claiming to seek asylum. Anyone in that situation should be treated as a legitimate asylum seeker unless they have been proven not to be one after being appropriately assessed. I would prefer to pay higher taxes to support people who are legitimately seeking asylum rather than sending them back to a country where they will be tortured and/or murdered.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Health issues? When you're fleeing from a war, hygiene tends to fall to the bottom of the priorities list. They probably won't be in the best condition when they reach your shores. And a lot of people, crowded together with low hygiene and weakened immune systems for days or weeks? Excellent conditions for a plague.


If people who "illegally" arrive in Australia by boat reach our shores they are locked up for a long time, or transported to an island and locked up for a long time, or sent to some other country and never heard of again. So there is no risk of a plague unless the organisations that are incarcarating them don't do their job property. I am more concerned for the children that are locked up and the people who have died unnecessarily due to their incompetence.

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd....feb6e77c218c275

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
I've heard that Australia is not very therapy-friendly, but I could be wrong.


You are.

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
They'd have to either increase taxes or decrease spending elsewhere. Would you rather take a cut from your paycheck or lose government funding for education, road repairs, public upkeep, law enforcement, etc.?


Yes, would you prefer to allow people to be tortured and murdered just so you have a bit more income?

Quote: Originally posted by hugbug993
Is it the humane thing to do, taking in these refugees? Most likely. Is it the right thing to do? Well, are the majority of Australians willing to take in the refugees? Make those sacrifices for outsiders? If not, then you're simply shifting the costs of war onto more people. You might be willing, but if most people thought the same, wouldn't the Prime Minister have already bowed to their wishes?


Every society falls victim to propaganda. Unfortunately division amongst the alternative party left many Australians vulnerable to being brainwashed. I don't believe they had any idea what they were voting for. He does not speak for Australians or make decisions that are in the best interests of this country and it's people.



Anyway now that terrorists can be demonised the government doesn't need to demonise asylum seekers anymore so things are probably going to improve for them. There is another "other" to hate now.

I wouldn't put a lot of effort into getting it transported.
Lab Assistant
#8 Old 16th Sep 2014 at 8:23 PM
True refugees and asylum seekers should be allowed in and given at least a bare minimum of help. Subsidence farmers should be given cheap land to work (possibly with a modest dwelling), other asylum seekers (and homeless citizens) should be given Spartan dorm-like dwellings. Illegal immigration is an entirely different matter.

--Ocram

Always do your best.
Test Subject
#9 Old 21st Dec 2014 at 12:00 AM
Yes they should, Human rights, for EVERYONE should be everyone's FIRST concern.
Banned
#10 Old 27th Dec 2014 at 8:02 PM
Quote: Originally posted by frazzmeister
Yes they should, Human rights, for EVERYONE should be everyone's FIRST concern.

Thanks a lot for the bump? Load the ion cannon?
Test Subject
#11 Old 5th Nov 2015 at 4:40 AM
Who would want to move here anyway?
Quote: Originally posted by maxon
I think there may be confusion over the difference between Asylum Seekers and Economic Migrants. Asylum Seekers are, by definition, people who are fleeing danger, life-threatening danger. It would seem to me to be uncivilised to refuse aid in cases like that. Economic migrants, on the other hand, are trying to move to gain better economic opportunities which is understandable but not always welcome in host countries who have their own economic problems.


In saying that, the whole thing is just a garbled mess. We do have a housing problem, along with another host of problems. Take it from me, if you're a young person living in rural Australia, there's nothing out here for you. Australia's government sucks. They're too busy squabbling over who gets to hold the reins to actually make any changes that would benefit the people currently living here, let alone deal with any international crises. In time, when we finally have stable, decent leadership, it would be a good thing to allow asylum seekers here. What the current population forgets is that we by all rights have no claim to the land we're inhabiting. It was stolen.
Allowing asylum seekers here would never be a negative thing.

Also, detention centers are monstrous things.
What's the deal with the child abuse allegations?
and Don't even get me started on the liberal party.
Seriously, look up friendlyjordies on youtube.
You'll thank me for it.
:D
 
Back to top