Oceania The Official Oceania Political Debate Thread! Current Debate: **The Pauline Hanson Verdict**

Alright, upon discussion with the RSA and GSA who sometimes come in here to give their learned advice to the direction of this forum, we have reached agreement on how to handle the flux of Political debate that crops up here every so often and tends to lead to the forum being flooded with different issues around which we all argue quite well (in my humble opinion ) and which breathes live into the forum.

This first post is to outline the purpose of this thread.
It will be for any current affair or issue that comes up over which we can discuss or at times argue over, hopefully raising some interesting points, topics and issues.

We are all strongly reminded to observe the TOS before posting however, and whilst obviously leeway is allowed for the nature of the debate, that does not encompass explicitly stated rules in the TOS, such as users not posting information deemed to be racist, false etc... (I'm sure we all know it by now)

I will try and manage to keep this thread alive and flowing, and with the blessing of our wonderful RSA and GSA ( ) will rotate through topics for discussion periodically to keep it fresh.

If you at any time have a request or an idea for a debate that you feel strongly about, wish to gauge opinion on, or simply wish to explore, send me a PM and it'll likely crop up as the next topic to come around.

Without further ado, we can begin.

Current Topic:

Exploring the political and moral implications of the current issues surrounding same-sex relationships, their legitimacy, and the role of the State in sanctioning or opposing same-sex unions.

 

Alright, I'll take the liberty of kicking off where DarthAttorney left us at, in response to Raincloud's recent post on the issue in the other thread, found here.

---

[i]They're illegal immigrants. Why should we let them into the country?[/i]

Why indeed? It's not as if they are human as well or anything. Well, hell, they MAY be humans, but they aren't Australians, so they are OBVIOUSLY less important, correct? What abhorrent logic. A civilisation does not earn the right to nationhood through arrogance and stratifying itself as special: in such a circumstance, it'll end up imposing it's nationhood. This can be seen on all such levels, from censorship of information (say, a movie for example), to policing of the populace and their purity. (read: right to exist as part of said nation)

Another civilisation imposed her nationhood in such a manner. Many in fact. See if you can name a few.

[i]Especially if they're uneducated criminals.[/i]

Which they all are, agreed. It's not like they locked up one Doctor. Muchatah in Baxter detention centre for the last 7 months and then denied him even a TPV because Afghanistan is purportedly "safe" to return to again. Ha!

But I forget, all Asylum Seekers are Terrorists eh? Watch out, look, there is some asian fellow stealing a good Australian's Job! Never mind that the Aussie Kid is probably too cosy smoking pot with his neanderthal mates behind the train station to care, and that the Asian is probably a rightful citizen simply willing to work HARDER then our youth: as far as you care, HE is an illegal immigrant, probably likes Usama Bin Laden, and his only purpose here is to taint our pure shores and steal the jobs of our wholesome youth.

Again, someone else once spoke like that before the Liberal Government subsumed and modifed her policy platform. Remember who? Go on, pick the [b]uneducated[/b] (she failed to finish her secondary schooling) [b]criminal[/b] (re: One Nation's Fraudulant manaement) who shares your view in this instance? ;)

[b]Its not fair that other people do it the legal way; waiting for months for addmission, etc; and then these people hop on a boat and weasel their way in, regardless of history or education.[/b]

Granted, it is not fair at all. And yet, the Federal Government seem QUITE happy to allow this analogous situation to occur within our higher education sector. You don't see them shouting out idealogical pap about "queue jumpers" when annoucing their plan to destroy Higher Education further do you? HELL NO! They plan to double the amount of "queue jumpers" who will "weasel their way in, regardless of history of education (al merit)".

And I'll tell you something else that's not fair. Living in poverty, probably threatened with the violence of War and or domestic violence at home, until you are forced to flee everything you've known or loved to seek a better life for you and/or you're family. You spend all your money trying to get there, the only way you know how, the only way you are told is possible. You willing fight back the fear of the leaky boat, the guilt of possibly having your loved ones board it as well or worse, not at all.

And then you come here, within kilometres of the shore, only to be captured, treated like enemy soldiers in a war zone, and carted at - as Gath has pointed out, GREAT expense to the tax payer - to Christmas Island so the Government can claim you never found your way onto the Australian Mainland.

THAT, is also not fair.

[i]And then they complain about the camps.[/i]
How dare they complain that they've gone through such an ordeal only to find the dream of an accepting, tolerant, land of the free and hopeful opportunity has been supplanted by some cruel phantasm not all that dissimilar to the Police State from whence they have just fled.

[i]It may not be the Sheraton, but what did they expect.[/i]

Probably to never have to see barbed wire again, and to be treated as human beings in accord with international

 

Being a veteran of the Senate Floor, I can tell you the one thing a political thread needs to start off is a viewpoint. What is your viewpoint on how we handle immigration itself, Protege-of-Thrawn? Would you let every refugee in, or would you determine the applicants based on the situation in both Australia and their native country? It's easy enough to rip into the carefully (carelessly?) masked prejudices of the anti-immigration crowd, the opponents to this are almost complete based in a small cloud of blissful ignorance about the reality of the Australian system to absorb these people. What's your view?

E_S

 

Paradoxically I believe this complex issue can be solved by trying our best to keep things simple, and yet I am not naive enough to believe I have all the answers.

But I believe we can do at least better then at present, but implementing some simple changes to our current policy.

1)Abolish the program of TPV, and accept that if they need protection now, they are refugee's and deserve our protection for good, and put them into the stream of citizenship applications.

2)Cap processing of refugee applications at 2 months. If this means employing more people or overhauling the beauracracy, fine, I don't put a price on the well being of these individuals, and I would hope the government doesn't either.

3) Work harder to find alternatives for refugee flow when our load becomes untenable. Just because we can take no more does not mean we can absolve our responsibility to find first world, safe, humanitarian locations for the refugee's to seek aid and apply for citizenship. This does not mean to continue our bullying of Indonesia, which is largely an unsuitable location, and indeed, a potential source of viable asylum seekers now and in the future. A viable solution I see is to increase funding of aid to the pacific in lieu of populating the relatively sparse density of citizenry on these largely fertile and untapped landmasses.

4)Increase our own intake. I believe my post above has already established that I believe we should be willing to concede a level of our own standards of living in non-essential areas (in other words, we aren't going to rip more out of education or health to do it) if it is to benefit other people in greater need. Of course we cannot do this to the point of economic collapse as I outlined in point three, but I doubt such a situation would ever eventuate given the numbers we would be dealing with, and if it ever did, we should have alternative arrangements and conduits through which the refugee flow can arrive at a humane and suitable "new beginning" from which they can hopefully, rebuild their life.

5) Lastly, improve the standards of living within the detention centres. Despite the rhetoric of idiots like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones who have purported the myth the detainee's have pay TV, sauna's etc, such allegations are unfounded. During the height of the flow, Woomera employed shipping crates from long distance haulers to house refugee's, which contained some blankets for the bitterely cold desert night, a slop bucket for hygiene, and conditions during the day inside the crates which reached 50+ degree's celcius.

I myself have been to Baxter detention centre, and looked into the eye of some of these detainees and seen not malice, nor hate, nor a criminal, nor a terrorist. I saw scared people, frightened people, who wanted, and needed help. The standards I could observe (they didn't let us close for obvious reasons) from afar were obviously sub-standard, and the visage of barbed wire fencing was compelling and disgraceful. They wouldn't let any of the detainee's out lest the press get pictures of them, and had the place on lock down whilst we were there, so I only saw a few of them who managed to get a look at us over the fence. But these people are NOT living in conditions worthy of international human rights standards STILL, in the here and now. I dread to think how it must of been up in Woomera those years ago.

 

That's the thing, isn't it? We have to stop portraying them as abstracts, and instead show them as people.

But it's hard, it really is, to do justice to the majority in this case.

E_S

 

Well, since the other thread was locked, I will now include my prior posts here...

It is a disgrace that the mainstream media are labelling the Vietnamese Boat People as asylum seekers.

What rubbish!

These people are NOT asylum seekers! There is NO civil war in their country, as far as I am concerened, their country is quite stable.

In the slightest, they are economic refugees. In reality, they are simply illegal immigrants!

Australia is too soft on this matter. Ok, let's say for example they ARE economic refugee's. If I, for example, went to the USA and asked for asylum and claimed that I was an economic refugee, they would laugh in my face, kick me out, and send me back to my home country.

This is a disgrace by the media and the left wing bleeding hearts, we need tougher border patrol.
Let me reiterate, I am not a rascist, but a realist.

What would happen hypothetically, if 0.1% of the Chinese population get sick of that country, and decide to come here... that is at least 1 MILLION people!

If we keep letting people in, we are opening ourselves up to economic disaster. The unemployment rate is already 6%.

WHY don't people ask the question why the Indonesians take these people in? They must laugh at us... they let these people travel through THEIR waters on the way to us. Why don't they accept them?

Like someone said before me, it is not fair to the people that are processed the fair and legal way, and have to wait their turn. A good friend of mine from the USA wanted to come and live here. He got totally stuffed around, and in the end could only get a 2 year student visa, and was only allowed to work for a maximum of 20 hours per week. He couldn't afford to stay, so he went back to the US.

See, the problem is - he tried to do it the right way. Plus he had a skill, is a qualified plumber, had money and could speak english.

Yet we want to let people in that can't speak the national language, have no resources of their own, and won't contribute to society in a meaningful way for a number of years.

My last gripe, and this is not racist, but a known fact - well at least in Melbourne anyway, the Vietnamese do *not* assimilate into society. They all group together and live in the same suburbs, don't learn the language, etc... At least when other cultures come here, they assimilate and become part of the Australian multicultural society, ie: Greeks, Italians, Croatians, Serbians, etc...

My dad was just reading the Herald Sun, and apparently there is an article that states that it has cost the Australian tax-payer $10 million dollars to ship the 50 odd Vietnamese to Christmas Island.

Disappointing.

This should be Indonesia's problem, after all, they came through there waters first.

 

And since you've been good enough to post the views here, and assuming the RSA doesn't come in a strike such racism from the record, I'll go through and refute your points for you. I've got a good half hour to waste before bed.

---

[i]These people are NOT asylum seekers! There is NO civil war in their country, as far as I am concerened, their country is quite stable.[/i]

As has been proven and stipulated in the other thread, you are mistaken in considering Vietnam to be anything but stable. It is still in economic collapse and has no cohesive infrastructure or governmental system beyond the motley collection of agencies eager to grab onto the post-war tourism boom in the region. As with most such society's with such poor socio-economic standing, violence and gangland warfare echo on every street and are the law and authority in many areas where social and civic authority has collapsed, or never even existed since the war.
These people are refugee's in every moral sense of the word. They are indeed, considered refugee's by Human rights standards as posted by both Amnesty International and UNICEF: check either web site for more information if you want to confirm my words. :)

[i]Australia is too soft on this matter. Ok, let's say for example they ARE economic refugee's.[/i]
Which they are, and far more.

[i]If I, for example, went to the USA and asked for asylum and claimed that I was an economic refugee, they would laugh in my face, kick me out, and send me back to my home country.[/i]

Because you come from a country currently in a better economic position relevant to it's population, than even America. You are not fleeing oppression, you are not in danger of being killed, either are your wife or children. No one in your family is in danger of being denied their rights, or simple social justices we take for granted. None will probably face the fear of systematic rape and torture to save their lives at the hands of some nameless gang or figurehead. You do not come from a country in the grip of poverty. You do not have to worry where your next meal is coming from. How you are going to treat your sick and dying family, who are all probably malnourished. And moreover, in going to America, you are applying for asylum in one of the most insular and centrist nations in the first world today, who have a history of [i]shooting[/i] refugee's fleeing from Mexico. Probably not the safest option, yet, the chance of freedom and a new beginning has refugee's and immigrants flooding there in numbers ever since their independence.

[i]This is a disgrace by the media and the left wing bleeding hearts, we need tougher border patrol.[/i]

The Media if anything isn't hard enough on the Government, and does a convincing job of making a mockery of the same cliched bleeding hearts to which you refer.

[i]Let me reiterate, I am not a rascist, but a realist.[/i]

Semantics. As has been established, your arguements are those of a racist trying to rationalise his viewpoints using flawed logic. Same poodoo different Bantha.

[i]What would happen hypothetically, if 0.1% of the Chinese population get sick of that country, and decide to come here... that is at least 1 MILLION people![/i]

Again, a flawed example. Whilst not as free or prosperous as Australia or the US, China is a growing and powerful nation, it's citizens relatively safe and healthy. They would not be asylum seekers, and would not constitute refugees.

[i]If we keep letting people in, we are opening ourselves up to economic disaster. The unemployment rate is already 6%.[/i]

Possibly because their aren't enough TAFE places provided for the demand of the industry, eroding the bottom of our economic structure. Very hard for the white collar to gain work if the blue collar basis aren't there, busy languishing in an un-educated limbo due to lack of places and training.

Perhaps if you took stock of your Australian History, you would see the number of great "Aussie" brands and company's that I'm sure a Patriot such as yourself treasures, ha

 

Okay, let's forget Indonesia as the example, but what about Singapore (which is a very stable country), Malaysia, Thailand and every other country they passed through before they came here... why didn't those countries take them in?

 

Sure, why can't they? But...wait...if they're going to take them...why can't we too? Or are we too elite now to take people who need help?

 

I think you misunderstand what I am saying... I am trying to convey the point that why does it ALWAYS have to be us, when at least half a dozen OTHER asian countries either reject them, don't accept them, or simply turn a blind eye and let them pass through their waters.

Why do WE have to be made out the bad guy all the time, when these other countries don't take them in?

 

I think the issue is they don't take them. I think I agree with Gatherer on this particular point.

You have to admit that if someone is genuinely fleeing their country and seeking refuge elsewhere, then wouldn't the first country you came to be a good place to start seeking refuge? Why then must some of these "refugees" get all the way to Australia before they decide they want to get off the boat?

 

Those countries are NOT viable destinations for desperate refugees. They need and deserve the care, hope and opportunity that Australia can promise. Not the teteering fragility of south-east asian economy's struggling to support their own citizenry, nor the police states and quasi-democracy's littered throughout the Pacific and south-east Asia.

He who is in the greatest position to give is from whom the most desperate should try and take. We are in a position to help these people, most of these Asian countries either are not, or more then likely, are ruled by corrupt regimes to busy creating refugee's to accept more in.

Australia is one of the few nations outside Europe willing and able to deal with displaced people and asylum seekers fleeing the evil acts of their homeland's rulers. We are a civilisation priding itself on a history of selflessness and goodwill.

Tell me Gath et al. If what your saying basically boils down to "if they don't take them why should we", do you realise you are essentially advocating that Australia - a modern, westernised democracy - sinks the level of corrupt governments, facade democracy's and militant police states?

I would surely hope not.

 

"Why do WE have to be made out the bad guy all the time, when these other countries don't take them in?"

Well you hardly hear of the success stories of immagrants into Indonesia (or even into Australia for that matter).

In fact the immagrant has a pretty rough time here all round. We complain when they get here cause we have to treat them with dignity, like human beings and spend money to feed/clothe/shelter them like human beings. We bitch at them when they're allowed to stay and move to the comfort and support of their little "segregated enclave" suburbs where they buy the food they like to eat and speak a language they know while they struggle to get up a leg in an entirely new part of the world. We throw abuse at them when they express their new-found ability to say whatever the hell they want and tell them to go home and we keep it up when they get a job cause they're obviously stealing it from a citizen who was already here before they got here and then we scream at them to stop cause they're making 20c an hour in a sweat shop sewing designer jeans for 14hrs a day.

Seriously: if you're white and Australian then when you bitch and moan about immagrants then you bitch and moan about your mother, or your grandmother, or your great grandmother.....my mother was an immagrant to Australia after WW2 at the age of 2 and you better not be throwing abuse at my mother cause there'll be trouble

 

Um, no, I'm not saying that. By all means, once they're here we may as well take them. But really, Beggars can't be Choosers, can they? I suppose I'm really asking Why? (or perhaps the question is Why Not?)

Edit: Er, somewhat comical timing there. This post is in response to PoT. Regardless, you know I would never say a bad word about your mother, DA.

 

"I would never say a bad word about your mother, DA."

I know.
I'm just making a trivial example out of my mother Syrix

You mean why other countries along the way don't take them?

I think the easiest way for us (as people who have most probably never known real hardship or repression in our lives) to look at it is to strip it back to a matter of plain survival. Would I want to go to a country that I know will probably land me in the clutches of people that will see me addicted to heroin and sell me into prostitution, harvest my organs or use me as slave labour at the fish markets OR do I want to risk my life to get to a place where I stand a pretty good chance of living a blissful life, where I can provide for my family, say what I want and try to get the rest of my relatives out the hell-hole I'm leaving? When you look at it like that, dropping anchor in Jakarta isn't really so appealing. They might as well risk it for a shot at a real life with the people they love. And I don't blame them.

And as to why Indonesia/Malaysia et al don't accept refugee's....well I think they actually do but the problem is that they have a fixed number (as do we I think) that they accept. I can't speculate that they don't take refugee's because I can't be totally sure. Does anyone know 100% that these countries don't take refugee's? Does anyone know how native Indonesians or Malaysians feel about the refugee's their countries take in? ?

 

Right, I haven't read everything, but knowing PoT as well as I do, I know his standpoint and what that of those who oppose him will be.

Rather than taking a complete view and putting it down here regarding asylum seekers (my view has changed somewhat over the course of time), I'd rather air a possible solution upon which I welcome discussion and criticism.

Firstly, I'd like to outline a few facts (in no particular order):
1. Refugees are a problem to all nations of the world, whether they are creating them or having to "process" them.
2. Australia is a relatively rich nation surrounded by a morass of other nations, many of which have far worse internal political problems.
3. As a stable nation in the region, we have a responsibility to ensure our own safety, by ensuring regional stability.
4. Refugee problems are just that - problems. But they require watertight solutions, not band-aid ones.
5. Every human being must be granted rights and the opportunity to enjoy freedom - this is the basic principal of the liberal capitalism that we preach to the world.
6. As a global problem, the "refugee situation" must be dealt with by a global solution.
7. Australia is wasting money which could be better spent on refugees.
8. Australia was part of a conflict which created masses of refugees in the Middle East, to whom we have a responsibility.

The UN has condemned us for our refugee policy, and we have ignored them, but what we must not ignore is the sway of the UN on the world's stage, and more importantly in the minds of our people. The political stunt that the largely innocent refugees have become must be solved by a greater political stunt, namely the active involvement of Australia in a UN brokered agreement on refugees and, more importantly, how to deal with the problem of refugee influx.

Australia spends a figure somewhere in the millions-billions of dollars upon dealing with refugees, let us call it "x" for governments never give out true figures, regardless of what is printed in the Herald Sun (the media have political agendas too, funny that). X is a sum considerably more than what the vast majority of us will see in our lifetimes (with the possible exception of Kane, should he managed to whore his emotions to the masses). It manages to feed and shelter refugees, as well as politicians and those caught up in beureaucracy, and frankly it's a misappropriation of funds.

What if x were given to the UNHCR (United Nations High Commission on Refugees) and Australia threw it's support, facilities and beureaucracy behind the UN. We then work alongside the UNHCR and other nations to ensure a new process is put in place whereby refugees must apply to the UN - at the first possible place they can - to apply for refugee status. Individual countries then process requests based upon UN guidelines and the refugees are placed in the care of the UN, not the country in which they have applied for refugee status and given accomodation as is best possible. Children under the age of 15 should not be denied refugee status.

Once their applications have been approved, refugees may apply to various nations in which they wish to live and the nations must take quotas based upon UN guidelines, which may be increased as a country wishes, but not decreased. It means that every individual refugee has, in theory, an equal opportunity to gain refugee status and make new opportunities for him or her self

Yes, there are faults in this, however given the right resources, the UN has the knowledge and juristiction to be able to oversee such a huge operation, providing other countries co-operate. It doesn't make sense to tackle a worldwide problem as individual countries, and it must be dealt with as a united world. Frankly, you can argue all you like about whether or not we take the refugees, but eventually someone has to. Would you rather be a citizen of the nation who created a solution, or who spent 5, 10, 20 years of it's political life sitting around scratching itself and debating whether or not there was a proble

 

Fair point...the problem being every nation that refuses to recognise the authority of the United Nations. I don't think you'll see a global solution to the problem until you get unequivocal acknowledgment of the UN to arbitrate disputes on a national/international level. To that end, the International Court of Human Rights is a fantastic step forward...but our government is interestingly silent as to whether it will submit itself to that jurisdiction.

 

There was an interesting article in the Diplomat's last issue, which talked about how the Howard Govt. enjoys UN bashing to distract people from what the UN's saying about us. Worth a read, regardless of your views here.

E_S

 

Might be worth a read, cheers Ender.

Just to digress a little more (next post, please come back to the issue at hand), if we were to emphasise exactly why the UN was set up and what its ideals were at its inception, we would probably be able to gain it back some lost credibility, especially if we highlighted the leading role played by the USA. History does not lie, politicians simply warp it over time. But what does everyone think of the concept, some feedback would be nice...

 

In fact the immagrant has a pretty rough time here all round. We complain when they get here cause we have to treat them with dignity, like human beings and spend money to feed/clothe/shelter them like human beings.

When they DO get here, and are put in the shelters why they are being processed they ARE given a ROOF over their head, FOOD, FRESH WATER, TV, BEDDING, etc... MORE than what they would get in their home country, yet this is STILL not good enough for them, as it has been widely shown via report after report of them vandalising the centres, setting them on fire, etc... No wonder a lot of Aussies don't want people like that hear if they want to behave like that.

If they were genuine refugees, then they would bide their time and wait for the processing to be complete, and if they really were escaping tyranny, etc... then the asylum centres would be like a literal PARADISE for them as compared to the country they came from... yet they act like simple ungreatful vandals.

 

Might be worth a read, cheers Ender.

Like the Economist, it's a fantastic read, if not a little costly (it is only quarterly though).

E_S

 

Oh Gath, my friend...where to start.

When they DO get here, and are put in the shelters why they are being processed they ARE given a ROOF over their head, FOOD, FRESH WATER, TV, BEDDING, etc... MORE than what they would get in their home country, yet this is STILL not good enough for them...

Yeah, how dare they complain! Hold on..(goes to get another chocolate bar and some ice cream and to turn up the heating) ..sorry. Ahem, where was I? Yeah, how dare this dirty people complain! We give them all the DESERVE right? They shouldn't be afforded the same chances and opportunities as us, we deserve 'em more. Becuase...um...we are Aussies. and White. and vote Liberal! Which reminds me, I have to make another donation to Phil or my Albanian girlfriend might get deported....

Seriously Gath, these people are treated in conditions not fit for the first world. They are denied basic human rights. They may be able to survive for time in such conditions physically, but psychologically they are being destroyed. What they are given is shelter, yes, they have water, yes, but they do not have TV, at least not at Woomera or Baxter, so that is the first misconception I'll dance to before this segue to your next comment...

... as it has been widely shown via report after report of them vandalising the centres, setting them on fire, etc... No wonder a lot of Aussies don't want people like that hear if they want to behave like that.

Bingo, key point? Report after report. Gath, any informed Australian knows to take some two-bit journalists media beat up for what it is worth: hype and playing on fear to try and cajole some extra ratings out of easily scared middle aged housewifes. There may be a thousand great deeds by immigrants to this land, but you can guarantee when you flick on AcA, you'll see a story (possibly with trained actors and staged dialogue) with the "dodgy Iranian immigrant who leeched off the taxpayers goodwill and kindness, to build his evil plans to destroy our kids. This may look like a Fish and Chip shop set up by a motivated new Australian, but it is actually a front for International Terrorism. This man who is a Muslim, is obviously a terrorist, and using this business to make the youth of Australia fat, ruining our future. Just Diabolical. (Random cut to women on the street with blank stares saying "Oohhh..That's scary." "I was scared". "I couldn't believe it was happening here, in Australia. People should be WARNED.") This is Ray Martin."

Personally I wouldn't blame the Asylum seekers for finding any means possibly to communicate their plight to the Australian people. They are being mistreated, and part of them hopes that a shred of the humanity they thought Australia represented still exists, and people will be compassionate to them.

But no, they sew THEIR LIPS in protest, the media and government conspire to label it a "dangerous action" and that these quasi-terrorists have "endangered their kids!"

A good theme they tend to use here, say something is a danger to kids, and middle aged mothers get frightened!

Another boat load comes in, public opinion may be showing signs of compassion. Oh No! Mr Howard, what to do? I know! Let us LIE to the Australian Public and say these people are THROWING their kids overboard! Great idea! Yet another dirty non-white endangering kids, might get us another term in office eh?

But then again, Howard isn't any stranger to bald faced lies to the Australian People. This coming from a man who was once quoted as saying "In Australian Politics; Truth must always reign supreme."

Don't be fooled into thinking that these riots and protests are daily manifestations of their inherit "ungratefullness" and "evil". It is a cry for help manipulated so easily by the government and media, because YOU, the Australian Public, so pathetically and easily misled and manipulated.

If they were genuine refugees, then they would bide their time and wait for the processing to be complete,

Yeah, because when you're escaping persecution, poverty or an

 

"MORE than what they would get in their home country"

But tell me is it more than they deserve as human beings Gath? ?

"....as it has been widely shown via report after report of them vandalising the centres, setting them on fire..."

That's all you see. You don't see stories of the thousands of happy families finally leaving the centres for a free life in a new country because it's not news to most people. Does it mean it doesn't happen? No, you just don't see it.

"If they were genuine refugees, then they would bide their time and wait for the processing to be complete, and if they really were escaping tyranny, etc... then the asylum centres would be like a literal PARADISE for them as compared to the country they came from...."

How long have the rioting guys been in there Gath?
These are people that are coming from a troubled society to one they think is better. In most cases they're risking their lives to do it. And where do they end up? In a jail. Some of these people might have seen prison in their native countries. Is this where they want to end up? What are these poor fools thinking to themselves? "Sure, we've got carpet and cable in this prison...but it's still a prison. I didn't risk piracy and slavery and starvation to wind up in a dressed up prison. So I'm getting out."

I don't support the destruction of these places at all but you can't seriously tell me that you can't see how a person (any person, not just a refugee) who's had an illusion stripped from them by a year or more of prison could think that way. ?

If the asylum centres are such a literal paradise, I'm sure you'd be more than pleased to put your money where your mouth is and move in for a year right?

 

And would you be up for housing them in your own home until they got on their feet?

One wonders how many of the bleeding hearts would open their homes to these people so they'd have somewhere to stay until they got a job and their own home.

Any takers to let strangers live with them?

 

Sorry....where did I say they shouldn't be in there at all?

Do you have any suggestions about a sensible course of action on the treatment of refugee's "MisFitToy"? ?