And the boats keep coming

[Sceptic-PK]

Incidents like this completely distort the discussion on immigration. As unpleasant as sexual assault may be, framing the immigration debate in those terms provides no utility in my opinion.

 

[lionking]

You do know that child molesters/paedophiles are rarely cured don't you? We have enough of these monsters here already without importing any more.

Yup. Asylum seekers=paedophiles. Nailed it as usual amb. I don't know how anyone else failed to see this blindingly obvious fact.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Incidents like this completely distort the discussion on immigration. As unpleasant as sexual assault may be, framing the immigration debate in those terms provides no utility in my opinion.

Some arguments are better received by your mates after a few schooners down the pub.

 

[Skepticemea]

To unsubscribe from a thread head up to near the top of the page and use the drop-down "thread tools" menu.

Ta.

 

[Wildy]

Exactly. So why not stop him before he arrives?

How would you be able to pre-screen him from all the others or are you suggesting we remove the right to asylum for boat people simply to protect Australia from a minority subset of the boat people?

Is that right? That sex crime criminals have lower recidivism? Does that include paedophiles too? Not that I don't believe you but have you some evidence?

13.4% recidivism rate for sexual crimes among all groups of sex offenders, this number is higher among rapists and lower among child molesters. Of all crimes the rate is about 30%, but statistically a sex offender is more likely to commit any other type of crime instead of another sex offence. People convicted of robber or burglary have a recidivism rate of about 70%.

No, like you I have no idea. What I do know is that the community would be safer if he had never arrived.

Well hindsight's a bitch isn't it?

What is it with you and the plane arrivals strawman of yours?

Since when was pointing things out that you conveniently ignore a strawman?

People on planes generally have documentation, their records have been checked, and they don't die at sea.

Despite the fact that some of the documentation held by these people is fake?

And I have never said they should let plane arrivals do one thing or another.

No, but you have said that they should treat these two groups differently simply because you disapprove of the method one group uses to come to this country.

Have I somehow been unclear?

Well on what you want these people to do you have. As far as I can tell your ideal solution is for the boat people to go somewhere else.

People die on boats and others lose their places in the proverbial queue due to limited numbers being used up.
Here we have a potential criminal taking someone else place.

Apart from the dying everything else you're saying is utter bollocks.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

snippety snip

I'm sure this man would be safe there, as long as he doesn't happen to end up in an Australian funded detention centre, I'm sure he'll be safe there.

Gee, that was a huge amount of straw. The point is that they have escaped the persecution of their own country and have reached relative safety. Any port in a storm - as they say.

What happens next is they risk their own lives as well as (often) other family members to get here. Once here, they have then taken the place of people just as - if not more - deserving.

In the meantime, because of the laws (or lack thereof) have allowed this person to arrive and meddle with girls. Great!

I ask again, which is the more humane? Allowing these boats to come unhindered or letting people rot in refugee camps in (say) Africa?

 

[amb]

The people rotting in real refugee camps don't have between 5-10 thousand dollars to pay people smugglers. Real refugees go to bed at night with empty bellies.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Yep. And somehow people think it's more humane to ignore their plight. Incredible!

 

[Akhenaten]

What happened. The cat bite your fingers?

Speaking of which, are you still working on your answer to this question?

But isn't it true that worldwide refugee applications peaked on a 20 year high in 2001, and fell by around 50% by 2006? Since this period was concurrent with the Pacific Solution how were you able to determine that the reduction in boat numbers was due to that solution and not to other, unrelated factors?

 

[lionking]

The P&O boats should have been stopped in the 50s and 60s. Bloody immigrants ruining our lifestyle.

 

[zooterkin]

The people rotting in real refugee camps don't have between 5-10 thousand dollars to pay people smugglers. Real refugees go to bed at night with empty bellies.

Because they can't find any salt for their porridge?

 

[Wildy]

Gee, that was a huge amount of straw.

No it wasn't. But then again all you show in these discussions is how little you actually know.

The point is that they have escaped the persecution of their own country and have reached relative safety. Any port in a storm - as they say.

Because being persecuted and/or abused in a different country doesn't matter as long as you're not being persecuted by your own country.

Once here, they have then taken the place of people just as - if not more - deserving.

But you don't have any valid reasons as to why the boat people are less deserving, you just want to punish those who make more of an effort to get themselves and their families to safety.

In the meantime, because of the laws (or lack thereof) have allowed this person to arrive and meddle with girls. Great!

Then you'd need to either try and get Australia to withdraw from pretty much every treaty involving people that they're signatories to or petition the UN for change. Because so far all you're suggesting is that we deliberately violate the treaties that we're signatories to simply because you don't

I ask again, which is the more humane? Allowing these boats to come unhindered or letting people rot in refugee camps in (say) Africa?

Well given the two situations that you've presented the first one is more humane than the second situation, which suggests to me that you didn't think through what you were trying to say or you're trying to set up some kind of false dichotomy. Also I don't remember you asking me this before so I don't know how you can say that you're asking this again.

 

[Akhenaten]

The P&O boats should have been stopped in the 50s and 60s. Bloody immigrants ruining our lifestyle.

Absolutely. If they hadn't let the country fill up back then with people that already had a decent life in their own countries we'd be in a much better position to accomodate today's genuine refugees.

 

[amb]

Speaking of which, are you still working on your answer to this question?

Is that so?

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646c4d6.html

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Instead of referencing a page with dozens of links, could you draw our attention to something specific you wished to refer to?

 

[amb]

Absolutely. If they hadn't let the country fill up back then with people that already had a decent life in their own countries we'd be in a much better position to accomodate today's genuine refugees.

What a cruel statement to make!! The people who escaped with only the shirts on their backs after World War 2 are been compared to the economic asylum seekers who are paying up to $10 k to get here today. Luckily most of those people don't post in threads such as this, or have passed away by now.
The Jews who were just about wiped out by the Nazis are nothing like the well fed and resourced free-loaders coming into this and other countries now.

 

[lionking]

Immigrants from southern Europe in the 60s had only shirts on their backs? Crap. And Italy's work in WW2 was exemplarily, but that's another subject.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Because being persecuted and/or abused in a different country doesn't matter as long as you're not being persecuted by your own country.

Have you evidence they are being abused and persecuted in other countries>

But you don't have any valid reasons as to why the boat people are less deserving, you just want to punish those who make more of an effort to get themselves and their families to safety.

You have to be kidding me.

Then you'd need to either try and get Australia to withdraw from pretty much every treaty involving people that they're signatories to or petition the UN for change. Because so far all you're suggesting is that we deliberately violate the treaties that we're signatories to simply because you don't

The Pacific Solution violated what treaties?

Well given the two situations that you've presented the first one is more humane than the second situation,

Why?

I have explained why I think the latter, I would be interested for you to explain the first.

 

[Skepticemea]

The people rotting in real refugee camps don't have between 5-10 thousand dollars to pay people smugglers. Real refugees go to bed at night with empty bellies.

Bloody hell! Really? Do you really think that? These people DON'T have 5-10 thousand dollars. They "OWE" that to the criminals who ship them in and then put them to work in sweat shops or force them into slavery and prostitution.

But that's their problem, hey? It only becomes your problem if they survive the journey.

 

[amb]

Immigrants from southern Europe in the 60s had only shirts on their backs? Crap. And Italy's work in WW2 was exemplarily, but that's another subject.

You are trying to get me banned, I can clearly see that. What about the Poles, French, Germans, Northern Europeans, Scandinavian countries, Greeks, Slavs and many more. Italians made up less than a third of the true refugees who escaped from true hunger. My Father came out here in 1952-3 and had to pay his own way, and was not provided with a house when he got here, there was no medicare in those days as well, so no free medical care. Then he had to borrow whatever it cost to bring myself and an older brother plus my mother out here in 1955. All this while the Poms were paying just $ 10 to get here, and were provided with a house. See. I've kept my cool, but don't know how long I can do so with posts such as the above.