Greens want humane, economical approach to asylum seekers

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

 

Sir – We are calling on Territorians to vote for a humane and economical approach to the issue of asylum seekers.

 

Darwin has become the immigration detention capital of Australia with 3000 asylum seekers now detained here. History has shown the devastating effects that long term detention has on asylum seekers as well as on many of the staff in detention centres.

 

The ALP’s new policy of transporting all boat arrivals to PNG for processing and settlement breaches international law, will be astronomically expensive and will not deter people from seeking asylum here.

 

The Liberal party’s policies on this issue, including abolishing the right to appeal negative refugee decisions for asylum seekers already in Australia, violate the basic rights of some of the world’s most vulnerable people.

 

Both parties’ policies on this issue are new, untested and will likely be the subject of High Court challenges. Voters must stop listening to the fear –mongering politics of the major parties and vote for a common sense approach to asylum seekers, who could be processed in the community for one tenth the cost of being held in detention.

 

In recent weeks the major parties have been trying to outdo each other in their cruelty and illegality towards asylum seekers. The Greens are now the only party with a sensible and compassionate approach to this issue. Asylum seekers are a humanitarian issue, not an issue of border security or defence.

 

Musicians and Greens candidates Warren H Williams and Todd Williams last week wrote a song entitled I Want To Be Free about the plight of an asylum seeker looking for refuge a long way from home.

 

They performed the song at the Darwin Airport Lodge to an ovation from detainees. The song will be launched on Youtube.

 

The Greens advocate the processing of asylum seekers in the community in a timely and transparent manner, an increase in the humanitarian and offshore quotas, full compliance with our obligations under the Refugee Convention and enhanced regional cooperation in the Asia-Pacific to provide safer pathways for asylum seekers, with long-term planning to accommodate people displaced by on-going conflicts and climate change.

 

Todd Williams and Michael Brand

Local Greens candidates

Be Sociable, Share!

18 Comments (starting with the most recent)

NB: If you want to reply to a previous comment, start your comment with this notation: @n where n is the number of the comment you want to reply to.
  1. Russell Guy
    Posted September 3, 2013 at 4:11 pm

    @ Camleer,
    Some commentators choose to remain anonymous, but I subscribe to the Alice Springs News policy that real names should be used, except where the Editor has right of discretion and agree with Ian Sharp that “opining from the shadows” comes at a price.

    View Comment
  2. Cameleer
    Posted September 2, 2013 at 5:23 am

    No offence taken Russell, I appreciated you making the case for anonymity.

    View Comment
  3. NIMBY
    Posted September 1, 2013 at 4:03 pm

    The FACTS still remain and since they are facts, the only arguments left are risible attempts to distract away from them.
    This is not a question of refugees, it is one of border security and deliberate attempts by people jumping in front of the queue preventing other deserving legitimate refugees, who do the right thing by our laws.
    Who do you want – someone who wantonly violates Australian law and takes 180k out of your pocket just for the first year, or someone who does the right thing and abides by our system?
    It’s not a hard choice.
    But go on, cry about jellyfish all you like. It won’t change the truth, something lefties have good reason to cry about as you will soon see next Saturday.

    View Comment
  4. Russell Guy
    Posted September 1, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Cameleer, in the interests of the ad hominem saga, I owe you an apology and an explanation for my unfortunate “Jurassic” comment.
    I remember, during the 1960/70s, among many philosophical maxims, reading that ‘the personal is political’.
    That said, it behoves us to focus on the facts of an argument to arrive at the best possible decision. Needless to say, this is tainted by self-interest, ego, ideology, available cash, information, subjectivity, etc.
    Hopefully, after debate, we should be better informed and able to modify our beliefs. That’s the beautiful thing about a democracy, which former Labor leader Bill Hayden once said wasn’t all that great, but was better than anarchy and this goes to the heart of the so-called asylum-seeker issue.
    In this respect, I thank Ian Sharp for his input into this issue. We probably will not ever resolve all political issues, but it’s worth a shot.
    Without wishing to slander the porcine fraternity, pig-headedness is often a feature of debate and the outcome, as in personal issues, is less than fortunate. Hope I make myself clear as mud. Therefore, I apologise for accusing you of somehow being associated with dinosaurs.

    View Comment
  5. Russell Guy
    Posted September 1, 2013 at 8:50 am

    @ NIMBY and Cameleer.
    “Lefty alert” is a bit droll, NIMBY, especially given your ad hominem defence and Cameleer, your logic is Jurassic, but thanks for being good sports.

    View Comment
  6. Ian Sharp
    Posted August 31, 2013 at 8:58 pm

    Even more jellyfish! None of whom seem to recognize our obligations under international law, or to have much compassion. Wonder if they watched the SBS series ‘Go back to where you came from’?
    They show little recognition of the size of the global refuges crisis, and Australia’s miniscule involvement. Our focus on this issue politically shames us.
    As for their insistence on non de plumes, what humbug. Sophie Scholl and her brother and friends handing out anonymous leaflets in Nazi Germany I can understand. But not these custards. Grow some backbone Nimby, DD and Cameleer instead of opining from the shadows.
    In the forum in ancient Athens if you wanted to voice your opinion you had to be brave enough to stand up and speak in public.
    Similar today in The Australian and The Age. This Alice News forum is demeaned by your lack of courage in your convictions.
    I don’t want to demean myself by participating with your ilk. I have more respect for the likes of Steve and Janet Brown, however much I may disagree at times with their views.

    View Comment
  7. DD
    Posted August 31, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    They are not asylum seekers, but con-men / women run by people smuggling gangs who have no respect for our laws.
    If the Greens can’t understand the bleeding obvious then they are no use to me.
    I am an environmentalist and pro-animal rights – the over populating of Australia by devious means are an anathema to me. These two principles need a real political voice – not a bunch of WATERMELONS!

    View Comment
  8. NIMBY
    Posted August 31, 2013 at 4:29 pm

    It’s not about how I “feel” (lefty alert) – the fact is money is spent in enormous amounts on people who are gaming the system.
    That same money comes from the people who earned it here. It is in fact a portion of our public debt, ipso facto more than lost earnings for our own people; it must be paid to the bankers with compound interest.
    Appealing to emotion, whether a bleeding heart, or simply shaming me for not posting a name, without addressing the facts, is nonsense, manipulative and evasive. Logically, it is pure ad hominem.
    National security is a cardinal responsibility of a government that is in the public service. That means securing the border.
    Our money, which does not grow on trees, but is ultimately a function of our labour, can then be spent on the public benefit, which is fair and reasonable.
    As usual with the politics of the left, listen to what they do not what they say. The Greens are redder than Kata Tjuta!

    View Comment
  9. Cameleer
    Posted August 31, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    Good heavens Russell, please play the argument not the man unless you have no counter argument, dispute the so called FACTS not the anonymous respondent’s credibility.

    View Comment
  10. Russell Guy
    Posted August 31, 2013 at 8:13 am

    @ NIMBY posted August 27, 10: 27pm.

    Regardless of how you feel about the “facts” or whether it’s possible to play “the man” as an anonymous postee/cypher, the fact remains that less credibility is afforded those who post anonymously. The Editor has recently pointed out that he will accept anonymous posts in relation to information of public interest by those who, because of their government employment status, may not do so otherwise.
    The rationale is that they may suffer persecution or termination of their employment. Alex Nelson refers to this in relation to the architect designed building in Bath Street, currently empty, but rented for the past twelve months by the NT government.
    Many taxpayers are concerned about government wastage in times of budget deficits and threatened job cuts in the education and health departments, while politicians authorise expenditure of public money, often according to ideology, rejecting professional advice and reaping enormous financial rewards, culminating in a lifetime pension, justified because they feel that their vocation is more onerous than others.
    I believe that unless this process is called and named for what it is, then it will continue to infest our partisan democracy and we will indeed get the government we deserve.
    Standing up and analysing party policy such as you have done is one thing, signing your name to it and having the courage of your convictions may resolve the status quo and bring on the type of robust transparency in government which we truly deseve and with which you seem to be engaging. Of course, you must be prepared for the flak.

    View Comment
  11. NIMBY
    Posted August 30, 2013 at 10:30 pm

    The FACTS still remain 🙂

    View Comment
  12. NIMBY
    Posted August 30, 2013 at 10:27 pm

    It’s not hard to see the difference between playing the man and the argument.
    And there’s still no elegant riposte to the facts regarding illegal immigrants bypassing a shedload of other countries to the land of taxpayer milk and honey?
    The free lunch crowd (Greens) can’t seem to grasp the idea of border security or that the taxpayer goes without when we give money to illegal immigrants. 50,000+ since Rudd.
    But go on, chastise me for being a coward. Hope it makes you feel better. The facts still remain.

    View Comment
  13. Ian Sharp
    Posted August 30, 2013 at 9:24 am

    Crikey Nimby, the invertebrate! You claim ad hominem! Tres amusant! Too funny. But silly, o anonymous one. You can’t have it both ways, Cowardly Custard. Good to see no use of Capitals though.

    View Comment
  14. Russell Guy
    Posted August 30, 2013 at 8:16 am

    Let’s not lose sight of the principle I believe Ian Sharp is referring to here. It’s debatable whether ad hominem can refer to an anonymous postee.

    View Comment
  15. NIMBY
    Posted August 29, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    And ad hominem as rebuttal is weak as water here. The Greens are a disaster in power. Somehow anonymity is a greater sin? Are you for real?

    View Comment
  16. Ian Sharp
    Posted August 29, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    HoHum Nimby. Not a big fan of The Greens, but even less so of anonymous opinion and ‘analysis’ especially when littered with capitals for emphasis. Crikey. Grow a backbone Nimby, put your name to your opinion, don’t squeak like a mouse. We don’t live in Syria.

    View Comment
  17. NIMBY
    Posted August 28, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    I might add that 50000 have arrived since Rudd removed a functional solution which stopped the boats. 50000 x 180000 = 9 billion dollars (as part of the 250 billion “on balance” debt … not to mention the NBN albatross).
    We have a population of 23 million.
    Our taxpayer base is a mere fraction of this and the full time worker an even smaller fraction.
    The bill for these “asylum seekers,” just for the first year, equates to THOUSANDS of dollars for taxpayers.
    This is a DIRECT effect of Labor Green dismantlement of an effective deterrent to what must be seen as willful queue jumping in front of equally deserving REAL asylum seekers applying via and abiding by our laws.

    View Comment
  18. NIMBY
    Posted August 28, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    Each one of these so-called asylum seekers costs $180,000 for the first year.
    The Greens make me truly sick with fear for our borders and for our future, should they get a candidate in, for the simple fact that it is $180,000 of Australian taxpayer money that will not be spent on cancer treatments, homeless, destitute, mentally ill Australians, refuges for victims of domestic violence, pensions for our own invalids, public service jobs and frankly, a whole a lot of capital malinvested that otherwise would have created private sector jobs, the true engine of our economy.
    The Greens can NEVER be trusted with public money for it will be spent on leftist bleeding heart idiocy rather than actually used to represent the interests of taxpayers – those people who devote their labour and time for that money.
    Furthermore, the so-called asylum seekers who literally bypass scores of other countries to specifically target Australia, especially those who pay smugglers and deliberately present without documents MUST be seen as antisocial and deported swiftly.
    I encourage all readers to view photos taken of the heavily muscled and tattooed Middle Eastern “asylum seekers” recently presenting – whom WE will be paying for, year on year, with our work and time, money which will not go to elective operation lists for the vulnerable, much needed nursing home care, super for our veterans, our depleted military, Aboriginal health care and paying down the enormous debt racked up by the Labor Green government!
    If you want to make your own coffin and pay for it too, vote for the Greens!

    View Comment

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*