Kerry Jorgensen: “…blow em up b4 they get here…”

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 6.15.05 AM

#ausmedia #asylumseekers

What a beautiful sentiment, Kerry. Thank you for sharing.

“Our prime purpose in this life is to help others. And if you can’t help them, at least don’t hurt them.”

– Dalai Lama

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 6.19.44 AM.png

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 6.26.02 AM

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 6.19.21 AM

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 6.18.20 AM

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 6.17.01 AM

 

Screen Shot 2013-08-12 at 6.12.39 AM

17 thoughts on “Kerry Jorgensen: “…blow em up b4 they get here…”

  1. Kerry’s just like any other bogan. Pretending that they’re caring and generous deep-thinkers by sprouting some kind of populist self-hlp or motivational bullshit, whilst actually putting into practice the actuality of their ignorant and hateful minds.

  2. I don’t know why people make such a big deal about it, all that needs to be done is to fix the problem with off shore processing and the problem will dissipate. If the Howard government’s fully working plan was just left alone, it would not be the issue it has become. I wish politicians would not seek to completely undermine the previous governments work and stuff everything up.

    • You mean like what Abbott’s planning to do with taking action on climate change,Mitch?

      “Fix the problem with offshore processing?”

      Okay, first its not really a problem. We have a relative handful of refugees seeking asylum (as is not only completely legal but also we’re legally obligated to assist them under international law) often from wars that we’re fighting in against our enemies eg. the Hazara felling the Taliban. Wanna swap situations with lebanon and its issues with Syrian refugees fleeing that land’s civil war? Or compare numbers with the USA and Europe?

      Secondly “fix” – what kind of “fix” is locking up and slowly driving mad people who have already suffered too much? No really. How is depriving refugees of their liberty, stomping on their lives for years and harming them at greta expense to ourselve sa fix? What good does it do us to treat these non-criminals who are only trying to survive and who would like to make better lives for themselves and simultaneously contribute to our society in all sorts of ways economic and socio-cultural like criminals and practically worse than animals? Answer – none. It harms and lessens us as a culture and nation as well as it tortures and lessens and damages them.

      Finally, just out of curiosity “offshore processing” – can you name one other nation that does this? Or has ever done this?

      Throwing our refugees onto one of the poorest nations in our region “processing” them in a way that dehumanises and mistreats them. That’s a non-fix to a non-problem but rather something horribly broken and the fact that too many among us fail to understand that having been so wrongly terrified by the media and the worst aspects of our human nature, now *that* is a problem we do need fixing.

  3. we’ve always had “boat ppl” regardless of the policies in place… ppl will always come… we have more visa jumpers tht arrive by plane then we do boat ppl coming into australia…

  4. Australia does have contradicting minded people like Kerry. Funny how she quotes from the Dalai Lama herself, and then blast the asylum seekers. Ouch!

  5. I still think Rudd was the one that messed with offshore processing which was working well. I’m not sold on this PNG solution either. PNG is a christian country which forbids homosexuality. Many of these Asylum seekers are same sex attracted, so there is an obvious issue there, combined with the conflicting religions of Islam and Christianity. So I’ m not sure how well it will work. I think the best idea is to just stop the boats at Indonesia from leaving. Has anyone thought of that idea?

    • Actually yes. Fraser has. Malcolm Fraser pointed out that when there was an upswing in Vietnamese boat arrivals, the Australian government set up processing centres in the SE Asian region (Malaysia and Thailand I think), to process asylum seeker applications, and provide approval before anyone got on a boat. The numbers then were comparable to the numbers now, and it worked. Boat numbers dropped, the SE Asian community arrived in Australia and 30 years on, it’s like they’ve always been here.

      He is now calling for the same thing to happen again. Except now, processing to take place in Indonesia (And possibly Malaysia). Indonesia is happy because we’re not pushing asylum seekers onto them as their problem to deal with. Boats don’t leave, people smugglers don’t get money (Who would go to a dodgy people smuggler when they can talk to an Australian immigration processing officer up the road?), we don’t get deaths at sea, and we provide an actual safe pathway for immigration for refugees, instead of complaining about people not following the correct path when there isn’t one there, and most of all, it hurts people smugglers without hurting asylum seekers who have committed no crime.

      When Fraser put it in, our economy was not as strong as it is now. The numbers (I believe) were greater than we have now. It worked. There’s no need to come up with a new solution when we’ve got a perfectly good old one.

  6. Ok yeah that’s interesting to hear that even though that was a very long time ago with Malcolm Fraser. I just think there should not be a pathway to follow to get to Australia. I really do think that dismantling Howards Pacific solution was a bad move by Rudd. I’m leaning towards voting Liberal at the election just because I see the PNG “solution” as being a temporary fix to a problem I see labor as starting up.

    I’ve had a bit of a think about the problem, seen many of those documentaries like go back to where you came from, but I just think that there are that many displaced people over the world and in places quite a distance from Australia that encouraging and giving these people “hope” to make the journey to Australia is actually the wrong thing to do, even from a humanitarian point of view. Relative to the population size of the country, we have taken in quite a few of the refugee, so I actually think maybe to really stop the flow of people is possibly the best idea. The only way I can see that happening is by breaking a link in the chain somewhere like doing what they did before with turning boats back and offshore processing. I think that actually saves lives because people are not drowning at sea.

    It’s hard because you feel sorry for the people, but then you need to remember the people of your own country, we can’t just become a nation of refugees, which would quickly happen if we took everyone and opened up new humanitarian pathways. So I actually think that being firm and not accepting Asylum seekers in the big scheme of things is the right thing to do to stop the flow of them coming.

    The more I learn about the situation, the more I feel that the original offshore processing and turning boats back was actually the right approach, so with that and the economy, I’ll probably be voting liberal.

    • “Ok yeah that’s interesting to hear that even though that was a very long time ago with Malcolm Fraser.”

      Not that long ago, and what, really, has changed in the meantime, except politicians becoming increasingly dissapointing?

      “Relative to the population size of the country, we have taken in quite a few of the refugee,”

      By population size we haven’t taken much at all. We actually come 69th in refugee population per 1000 member of the population:
      http://www.factsfightback.org.au/does-australia-take-the-most-refugees-check-the-facts/

      ” I think that actually saves lives because people are not drowning at sea.”

      The problem with that thinking though is people who get set back to their home countries, and let’s not forget that Abbot’s plan is to do exactly that (Asylum seekers will only get TPV’s, with no possibility of ever getting permanent residency-and be sure, the department of immigration already uses the slightest good news from a country as a reason to deem it safe), they do have a risk of being killed-we just don’t see it so much because it happens over there.
      Source:
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-12/afghan-letters/4568656

      The other issue is that where are we going to turn the boats back to? Indonesia has repeatedly said that they won’t accept the boats, and considering Abbot has changed his position from “We will turn back the boats” to “We will turn back the boats where safe to do so” it looks like he has no intention of doing that either.

      As for offshore processing-it’s expensive, it damages people, reduces their ability to function in a new country, and during the Howard regime, most asylum seekers ended up in Australia anyway. So instead of living in the community, where they can develop skills, improve English, find their own accommodation and food, and reduce reliance on welfare by getting jobs; they live in a condition described by Prof Patrick McGorry as a “Factory for mental illness”, no English support once they are eventually approved (As 90+% were), no chance to develop work skills or find work, and having all food and accomodation paid for by the government. The result of living in the community is you get a group of migrants ready, and able to work, eventually giving so much back than what we have given them. The result of offshore protection is people being unable to work due to disabilities, unable to settle due to their lack of language skills, and increasing the dependence on welfare for decades to come. Which is the better outcome?

      Now, under Abbot’s plan, most asylum seekers will still end up in Australia, but on TPV’s, meaning they cannot access English lessons, and will have tremendous difficulty finding work. Put the word “Temporary” on a job application, and do not expect to get a response from anyone! Added to that the lack of English support, the asylum seekers who are settled here will be dependent on welfare for decades to come. How is that a good plan?

      “It’s hard because you feel sorry for the people, but then you need to remember the people of your own country, we can’t just become a nation of refugees, ”

      We don’t have to choose between helping asylum seekers, and helping those who already live in our country. We can easily do both.

      And what makes you think we’ll ever be a nation of refugees? When we welcomed SE Asian refugees in the 80’s we didn’t suddenly all become Asian. The vast majority of migrants coming to Australia have not been refugees, and other countries are receiving far more refugees and asylum seekers without suddenly becoming a nation of refugees.

      Now if you said Australia would become a nation of immigrants, then I’d agree with you. But then again, we always were a nation of immigrants.

      ” if we took everyone and opened up new humanitarian pathways.”

      But no one is saying we take everyone. We assess all, and modify our intake numbers according to the number of applications we receive. This is currently the system we have in Australia.

      And if you’re really wanting to be humane-why do you oppose opening humanitarian pathways? I mean, how would a Hazara family from Afghanistan escape the persecution by the Taliban if we have no humanitarian pathway (As we currently don’t)?

      • You know how when I said we do take in a lot for the size of our population and you claim that “we actually come 69th in refugee population per 1000 member of the population”. I contest this statistic. You provide a link there, but it is not a fair comparison, because that ranking includes all countries not just developed Western ones which is what we are in Australia.

        How can you compare a country which neighbors another country that has a war and a heap of refugees walk across into another country temporarily, only to return home later. It’s like comparing people going from Afghanistan to Pakistan with people going from Afghanistan to Australia. We are not even in the same hemisphere or on the same continent to them. We have different religion and laws here, it’s a completely different country.

        The people that come to Australia are coming for permanent settlement, not to return home at a later date. I’ve done the research on this issue, I don’t think Australia is the right place for these people. I think the Liberal party has got it right, you just don’t create Australia as an option. It create more problems by trying to solve refugee problems in East Africa, the middle East and India.

        • “I contest this statistic. ”

          Well, feel free to show a better one!

          “You provide a link there, but it is not a fair comparison, because that ranking includes all countries not just developed Western ones which is what we are in Australia.”

          So, it’s wrong to compare Australia, a rich country, with Sudan, a poor country-is it? Are you saying that Australia, again a rich country, should have far fewer asylum seekers and refugees than the People’s Democratic Republic of the Congo, which cannot manage itself?

          Anyway, here’s another source for you to ignore. Australia among industiralised nations only comes 47th in asylum seeker intake:
          http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1294102/At-a-glance-Who-takes-the-most-asylum-claims

          “I’ve done the research on this issue, ”

          What research? Considering you’ve ignored one statistic without providing any other, I’d like to see how fair and unbiased your research was.

          “I don’t think Australia is the right place for these people.”

          How exactly is Australia the wrong place for “these” people? Which “people” are we talking about? The Vietnamese who have been living here for decades, the African people who have never come on boats, the afghani community which is fitting in very well?
          Where are you suggesting “these people” go instead?

          “you just don’t create Australia as an option. ”

          Well, that’s not what Tony Abbot is doing. He’s stopping boat arrivals from living in Australia permanently. Plane arrivals and offshore settlement will still be welcome.

          ” It create more problems by trying to solve refugee problems in East Africa, the middle East and India.”

          We have virtually no asylum seekers or refugees from India. Indians come as skilled migrants and students-are you saying we need to get rid of them?
          East African refugees will still be settled in Australia, as will those from the middle east-both the Liberal and Labor parties are not disputing plane arrivals or off shore refugee settlement into Australia.

          But ignoring all these gaps in your thorough research…..what problems are caused by accepting asylum seekers, as we have been doing for decades now, compared to leaving them in their home countries to be killed?

          And stuff you ignored:

          1. “Ok yeah that’s interesting to hear that even though that was a very long time ago with Malcolm Fraser.”

          Not that long ago, and what, really, has changed in the meantime, except politicians becoming increasingly dissapointing?

          2. The other issue is that where are we going to turn the boats back to? Indonesia has repeatedly said that they won’t accept the boats, and considering Abbot has changed his position from “We will turn back the boats” to “We will turn back the boats where safe to do so” it looks like he has no intention of doing that either.

          3. The result of living in the community is you get a group of migrants ready, and able to work, eventually giving so much back than what we have given them. The result of offshore protection is people being unable to work due to disabilities, unable to settle due to their lack of language skills, and increasing the dependence on welfare for decades to come. Which is the better outcome?

          4. under Abbot’s plan, most asylum seekers will still end up in Australia, but on TPV’s, meaning they cannot access English lessons, and will have tremendous difficulty finding work. Put the word “Temporary” on a job application, and do not expect to get a response from anyone! Added to that the lack of English support, the asylum seekers who are settled here will be dependent on welfare for decades to come. How is that a good plan?

          5. And what makes you think we’ll ever be a nation of refugees? When we welcomed SE Asian refugees in the 80′s we didn’t suddenly all become Asian. The vast majority of migrants coming to Australia have not been refugees, and other countries are receiving far more refugees and asylum seekers without suddenly becoming a nation of refugees.

          6. And if you’re really wanting to be humane-why do you oppose opening humanitarian pathways? I mean, how would a Hazara family from Afghanistan escape the persecution by the Taliban if we have no humanitarian pathway (As we currently don’t)?

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s