Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#11

Post by jameshart »

ps4fanboy wrote: post #9
jameshart wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refugees and illegal immigrants are not the same . Seeking asylum is a legal path to immigration in most countries - because most countries are signatories to international treaties which oblige them to accept requests for asylum by legitimate refugees. It is perfectly logical and sensible to be in favor of a humane asylum system and vehemently opposed to illegal immigration.

How do you tell the difference when everyone who comes by boat claims to be a refugee? Lets not forget they catch planes to Indonesia and then board boats, why not claim asylum in Indonesia? Lets all get on the same page as well, this is how the United Nation defines an asylum seeker: The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides…

Through a humane, fast, fair asylum request handling process. It is acceptable for the answer to "Can I claim asylum in your country?" to be "No". If that is the case, it's in your - and the asylum seeker's - interests to come to that conclusion as quickly as possible.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#12

Post by brc »

Australians will take lecture from the New York Times after The USA perfects its record.

This article is full of bias-pushing, including the idea that what happens to the people on Nauru is mysterious or that they are in limbo, or that they are in some type of concentration camp.

The families on Nauru are free to leave and return to their country of origin any time they choose. They are free to participate in the local community and are not behind barbed wire.

The people who have self-harmed have been in contact with the legal industry inside Australia that prospers from their continued presence. These refugee advocates, in full knowledge of the state of the people in Nauru, don't seek to help them but seek to play them as pawns in their deadly game.

The undeniable facts of the matter was that when Australia temporarily relaxed the border protection laws, by the governments own statistics, at least 1,500 men, women and children drowned at sea. Most well known was when a timber fishing boat smashed into rocks in front of news cameras as people drowned.

Since the reinstatement of the laws, the only people who have been harmed are those that have self-harmed.

There is zero doubt that the laws save lives, and crucially, also provide the ability for people to support genuine refugee settlement, such as the processing of 12,000 Syrian refugees, more than the USA is doing, despite the USA having 14x the population of Australia.

The laws have broad support amongst Australian voters, including this voter. The advocates for open borders and a 'let them in' attitude are a small but noisy minority.

Australia still maintains a sizeable immigrant intake every year, drawing on people from around the world.

Frankly, the rest of the world can call me and fellow citizens as many names as they like but border protection is an important task for a Federal government, and I'm totally comfortable with it.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#13

Post by ps4fanboy »

jameshart wrote: post #11
ps4fanboy wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you tell the difference when everyone who comes by boat claims to be a refugee? Lets not forget they catch planes to Indonesia and then board boats, why not claim asylum in Indonesia? Lets all get on the same page as well, this is how the United Nation defines an asylum seeker: The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides…

Through a humane, fast, fair asylum request handling process. It is acceptable for the answer to "Can I claim asylum in your country?" to be "No". If that is the case, it's in your - and the asylum seeker's - interests to come to that conclusion as quickly as possible .

What if that is what is happening and the people in these detention centers just refuse to go home, I have never seen a single article sharing the stories of these refugees showing how they are actually legitimate refugees, just affectionate language aimed at making you feel sorry for them and angry at the government.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#14

Post by ryanlol »

darkseas wrote: post #5

I deplore the current policies that treat refugees as criminals. Dutton is engaging in the dog-whistle politics that got the former Prime Minister Abbott elected. And during the current federal election campaign, the Labor opposition can't be seen as soft compared to the government (and is even claiming some credit for setting up elements of the "offshore processing"). But, I cannot condone restarting the people smug…

It's worth noting that many, possibly even most, of these people are not actually refugees.

"refugee" is a rather well defined legal term.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#15

Post by ps4fanboy »

brc wrote: post #12

Australians will take lecture from the New York Times after The USA perfects its record. This article is full of bias-pushing, including the idea that what happens to the people on Nauru is mysterious or that they are in limbo, or that they are in some type of concentration camp. The families on Nauru are free to leave and return to their country of origin any time they choose. They are free to participate in the loc…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra...

Australia is #23

United States is #40

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#16

Post by benologist »

ryanlol wrote: post #14
darkseas wrote: post #5

I deplore the current policies that treat refugees as criminals. Dutton is engaging in the dog-whistle politics that got the former Prime Minister Abbott elected. And during the current federal election campaign, the Labor opposition can't be seen as soft compared to the government (and is even claiming some credit for setting up elements of the "offshore processing"). But, I cannot condone restarting the people smug…

It's worth noting that many, possibly even most, of these people are not actually refugees. "refugee" is a rather well defined legal term.

Pretty pointless distinction, the issue is their treatment by the Australian government not the environment they're leaving.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#17

Post by jameshart »

ps4fanboy wrote: post #13
jameshart wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Through a humane, fast, fair asylum request handling process. It is acceptable for the answer to "Can I claim asylum in your country?" to be "No". If that is the case, it's in your - and the asylum seeker's - interests to come to that conclusion as quickly as possible .

What if that is what is happening and the people in these detention centers just refuse to go home, I have never seen a single article sharing the stories of these refugees showing how they are actually legitimate refugees, just affectionate language aimed at making you feel sorry for them and angry at the government.

You've only seen "affectionate language aimed at making you feel sorry for them and angry at the government"? Which internet have you been using?

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#18

Post by ps4fanboy »

benologist wrote: post #16
ryanlol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that many, possibly even most, of these people are not actually refugees. "refugee" is a rather well defined legal term.

Pretty pointless distinction, the issue is their treatment by the Australian government not the environment they're leaving.

It is an incredibly important distinction, those found not to be valid are asked to return to their country of origin, how many of the people in these centers have been processed and refuse to leave?

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#19

Post by ps4fanboy »

jameshart wrote: post #17
ps4fanboy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if that is what is happening and the people in these detention centers just refuse to go home, I have never seen a single article sharing the stories of these refugees showing how they are actually legitimate refugees, just affectionate language aimed at making you feel sorry for them and angry at the government.

You've only seen "affectionate language aimed at making you feel sorry for them and angry at the government"? Which internet have you been using?

I am talking about the news/journalism, the avenue I would expect to actually drill into the facts, I feel like if there was a human story of a specific group of people who were legitimate Asylum Seekers it would have been written by now, the fact that it hasnt doesnt fill me with confidence.

Re: Australia’s Offshore Cruelty

#20

Post by ryanlol »

benologist wrote: post #16
ryanlol wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's worth noting that many, possibly even most, of these people are not actually refugees. "refugee" is a rather well defined legal term.

Pretty pointless distinction, the issue is their treatment by the Australian government not the environment they're leaving.

Not really, illegal immigrants are committing a crime. Treating them as criminals is to be expected.

In any case, TFA failed to reveal any major issues with their treatment.

Post reply on HN