Talk:Boat people

Bias

This article is biased and skewed. It wails and moans and rants about the fate of those facing justice from socialist governments. But it never says how those fleeing 'middle-class' people got their money in the first place, or what they did to keep it in a third-world context. It would have you believe that they are fleeing persecution. Really? You mean people don't try to get into the U.S. just to strike it rich?

It begins by saying that people are fleeing countries on boats, hense the name 'boat' people. It does not say that those boats are stolen. Stolen? Yes. The same criminals who deliberately put people on the high seas on unseaworthy, delapidated boats, unsafe, unnavigated, overcrowded and overloaded, sailed by incompetants, do not shirk at stealing them to begin with. If people will deal with criminals like this, what does that say about their former dealings?

Sure people fled from Cuba. Castro took the opportunity to let them. Every pimp, prostitute, Mafia crime lord, conman, wanted out rather than face communist criminal justice. And if they return, does Castro put them in jail for fleeing? No, he puts them in jail for . . . . stealing boats. From fishermen. Galenthegeometer (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)--Galenthegeometer (talk) 21:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

People as "rubbish"

The following sentence in this article is anti-human rights:

• Those who remained at the camps were considered the leftover "rubbish" waiting for the USA to take a final "garbage collection" before the inevitable forced repatriation.

If this is a quote, it should be attributed to whoever made it and a different opinion offered. In any case, why should lower class people be considered "rubbish"? Isn't this all about economics anyway? Some countries don't want to take people who might cost them some extra money to re-settle and integrate. Needs to be fixed with facts. Thanks Hmains 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• article says Chinese Vietnamese fled Vietnam after the Sino-Vietnamese War 'just as economic' refrugees', not because they were persecuted by the government. I believe it is the case (Chinese Vietnamese have told me so) that the Vietnamese government at that time wanted to get all Chinese to leave Vietnam and took active/forceful measures to assure that would happen (thinking the Chinese Vietnamese had more loyalty to China than to Vietnam). Could someone find factual documentation of this and, if true, change the article text accordingly. Thanks Hmains 01:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the author meant that they are genuine refugees. I reworded the sentence. DHN 04:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

poo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.117.47 (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

South-East Asian countries

I feel the article might not be fair to the SEA countries, Malaysia in particular (possibly the others too but I'm not sure). This article implies that these countries mistreated the refugees, allowed them to live in poor conditions and absconded with the aide money. I have no doubt there were many problems and some of the aide money was misused. And there arevarious controversies, for example, it is often suggested and this is probably at least partially true that goverments largely turned a blind eye to piracy. Similar, the then Malaysia DPM (later PM) Dr. Mahathir once infamously suggested that they should shoot them which was later 'clarified' as should shoo them (away) although most people seem to think he did actually mean shoot them initially (I suspect this is probably true but I haven't researched it enough to be sure). However I have also seen various suggestions that many of the refugees in Malaysia were treated decent enough and lived in acceptable conditions. Definitely, a large number of refugees were processed through Malaysia (250k out of around 880k total apparently). These links may be helpful [1] [2] [3]. I also distictly remember someone, I believe he or she was a representative of some sort of the Vietnamese community in Canada or some other Western country thanking Malaysia. Nil Einne 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I suspect it went something like this. Initially, Malaysia treated the refugees acceptably when they were in small numbers. As they kept coming, the treatment probably began to worsen. However partially as a result of this, the issue came to the eyes of the Western community with resulting pressure increased on various sides. All this meant several things. The Western goverments began policies of ultimately accepting the refugees and donating money to set up the necessary processing camps in the SEA countries. The UNHCR and potentially other organisations began to get involved. All this resulted in the SEA countries (or Malaysia at least) realising they would not have to accept the refugees permanently (which none of them wanted), only temporarily (and many of the refugees probably didn't want to settle in the SEA countries either). And they would also largely not have to pay for the refugees themselves. Therefore, their treatment of the refugees began to improve again. All this is of course speculation and we can't include it as is. But I suspect it is mostly true so it might help direct research. Nil Einne 16:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Poor sourcing

An estimated 1 million people were imprisoned without formal charges or trials.[1] 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps, according to published academic studies in the United States and Europe.[1] Thousands were abused or tortured: their hands and legs shackled in painful positions for months, their skin slashed by bamboo canes studded with thorns, their veins injected with poisonous chemicals, their spirits broken with stories about relatives being killed.[1]

The "source" for these statements is a newspaper article which references unknown "academic studies in the United States and Europe". A adequate source should be found for these numbers or they should be removed. 208.57.213.243 (talk) 22:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's from an article in the Orange County Register. That's a respectable source by any standard on WP.

It doesn't say "unknown academic studies". It says, "published academic studies in the United States and Europe." Most news articles don't include bibliographies but I think it's safe to assume the OC Register wouldn't be using outright garbage.

If you find another article (perhaps from a leftist mag like The Nation) with "facts" that conflict with this one then it can be displayed alongside it. In fact, that would be rather enjoyable.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with the comment about poor sourcing, I don't think that the issue is entirely poor sourcing -- it's relevance. This entire paragraph seems to be aimed at discrediting the Vietnam government rather than documenting the origins and nature of the boat people. This government-bashing and blanket characterization of the boat people as victims of communist atrocities in the south is exactly the kind of article that one expects to find in the OC Register -- its articles are not exactly an unbiased source of information about post-war Vietnam. This paragraph certainly could account for the accusation of bias found in another comment on this page. At best the article is a gross oversimplification of a complex issue. That shot at "leftist magazines" says it all. TayRuong (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Caribbean refugees

The beginning of the article also notes refugees from Cuba, Haiti, etc. who traveled to the US by boat, but then drops any discussion of them for the rest of the article. There either has to be sections about them, or they need to be dropped from the lede.--Parkwells (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

"Chinese boat people"

I just removed a paragraph about Tanka people. While they are sometimes referred to as "Boat people" in English, they have no connection with the topic of this article. See Tanka people article for the explanation of the potential name confusion. olivier (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Big section on Israel?

The devotion of a whole section to Israel's acceptance of some boat people seems to be lacking justification. From what I can tell it was just one country among many who accepted these people - and, looking at the numbers, accepted far fewer than for instance the US. Fair enough that there should be some mention of it changing Israel's internal policies but in my opinion this section is rather overblown and should be downsized. I'll do it myself unless someone comes up with some wording that indicates why it should have such prominence. --Lopakhin (talk) 14:05, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. DHN (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I downsized it and merged it into the following section, also adding a refimprove tag for that section. If anyone else has any suggestions for this section then feel free to place them here.--Lopakhin (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This article is about Vietnam

OK, I will admit that there are other people who flee conflicts and persecution in boats. But, please, when you say "boat people" in English, you know what we mean. We ain't talkin' about the Titanic.

The article tacitly admits by editorial decisions that "boat people" are specifically refugees created by the US pullout from Vietnam, but then inexplicably tries to broaden the definition. Other uses of "boat people" should be in the Refugee article.

Thank you for being reasonable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.164.229.247 (talk) 09:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Economic tourists and Country Shoopers vs Refugees and other Boat People

There is no mention here of "country shoppers" also known as "economic tourists". This is the situation where a person, being a refugee or otherwise, travels across several countries to better their life. This practice is seen as a form of theft, generally as these migrants claim positions that would otherwise go to 'genuine refugees' currently waiting to be accepted by host nations.

I submit that a new section examining and classifying what a 'country shopper' is and how this type of refugee / migrant came into existence, what drives this type of behaviour, facts and figures.

It is estimated that each person who gets on a boat to Australia, generally trying to land at Christmas Island and claim asylum, pays AU$10,000 to people smugglers. Australian authorities have found that the majority of people who come to Australia without going through the refugee process and bypassing Australian migrant laws have passed through at least one county who can or would shelter them.

The cost to Australia for what is locally termed 'illegal migrants' is estimated at AU$1 million per boat person. This is an estimated total cost which includes the cost of recovery of boat persons from the sea, transfer to Christmas Island, transfer the the Australian Mainland, processing and settlement. Processing of claims can be particularly expensive as many boat people who choose this route to Australia destroy their identification papers. This cost may also include the use of the law to allow relatives to travel to Australia and live in Australia once clemency is granted.

It has been noted many times that the majority of boat people travelling to Australia are males who come from the Middle Eastern countries including Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and sounds.

This issue is deemed to be critical to the next Australian election, matched in importance only by the new Carbon Tax which could be the end of the Gillard Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.88.45.5 (talk) 04:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Boat people (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:46, 26 June 2018 (UTC)