Australia is to nice to people seeking asylum
Debate Rounds (3)
Because we give them asylum and money as they want, they have become irritated because they haven't been allowed into Australia, they have started a hunger strike just to make the Prime minister and government feel for them. In many opinions i've heard, they are not in Australian waters, and they are not Australian citizens, therefore the government shouldn't have to worry about the Refugees at all.
Also, if the Australian Government lets the "boat people" into Australia it will show that the refugees have won, and they will love the life in Australia as they will be given money, accommodation and protection and they will not just take most of Australia's wealth over time, but will send messages to they're friends and families back in their home country to say that getting into Australia is easy, and the government will have to show pity for them as well, because the government treats all people equally, meaning that giving some refugees asylum and not giving others asylum is unfair.
To put this into basic terms, the refugees have used the government against itself, and by doing it they have also gained loads and loads of money, which could have helped Australia greatly.
The moral responsibility to accept refugees applies to all nations, but because Australia is not a rogue state and, instead, a highly respected member of the United Nations, The Commonwealth. ASEAN and the WTO and a number of other inter-governmental organisations, it must accept the extra responsibilities that accompany the benefits of being a leading economic and political power in the international community. (1)
With specific regard to asylum, as a signatory to both the UN Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, Australia has a legal obligation to accept genuine asylum seekers and afford them at least the same rights and privileges that are normally accorded to other foreign residents. (2) However, this is only right and proper and surely no proud Australian would wish to see thousands of refugees encamped on Bondi Beach receiving humanitarian aid shipped in by the Red Cross, Medicins Sans Frontiers and Oxfam?
Some Australians may think that they are accepting more than their fair share of the world's refugees but the reality is that Australia ranks a lowly 36 in the world, behind such relatively small and impoverished countries as Mali, Angola, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea Bissau, Belarus, Croatia, Georgia and Bosnia.
To put this into perspective, last year Australia took 64,100 refugees against Bosnia's 1,206,700 – that's 3.19 refugees per 1,000 Australian citizens against 272.393 refugees per 1,000 Bosnian citizens. (4) That means Bosnia takes over 85 times more refugees than Australia, even though it has over 150 times less land. (5, 6)
Of course it is particularly ironic that some Australians ignore their own history when it comes to discussing immigration. After all, prior to becoming a penal colony for British convicts the country was solely inhabited by the Aborigines. The white Europeans that subsequently settled the country and displaced the natives, depriving them of their livelihoods and even massacring them, cared little for their protests and to this day most Aborigines live on the margins of society.
With this in mind, why should any decent person sympathise with those frothing Australian racists that stand on harbour walls shouting "go back where you came from, we don't want you here"?
qwerty123 forfeited this round.
Now, Greenland is a huge country with massive potential mineral resources and I bet Canada has had its beady eyes on it for a while now. Let's face it; Greenland has to rely on Denmark for its defence so they would be a military push over.
I wonder if my opponent has ever considered the possibility that, one day, Canadian storm troopers might goose-step into his village and systematically kick down all the igloos, rape the all women and execute all them men?
Now, if this happened, suppose my opponent was lucky enough to be clubbing baby seals to death on the beach when the Canadian army rolled into town and he managed to escape on a fishing boat and, after many days of sailing with little food and water, he arrived in Iceland where he sought refuge. However, how would he feel if, instead of the warm welcome he was expecting, he was greeted by a crowd of angry Icelanders who were carrying placards with "Iceland for Icelanders" and "Go home you dirty Eskimo scum" written on them?
You see, refugees are not refugees out of choice; they are fleeing their homes and family in a desperate attempt to save their lives. So far, my opponent has been lucky enough to avoid that fate but I suspect he would change his opinion on asylum seekers should he find himself on the run from trigger-happy Canadian Mounties.
qwerty123 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Koopin 6 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||7|
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.