And the boats keep coming

[Akhenaten]

What about the Poles, French, Germans, Northern Europeans, Scandinavian countries, Greeks, Slavs and many more.

What about them?

Italians made up less than a third of the true refugees who escaped from true hunger.

Hunger??? When they had all that lovely pasta?

Rubbish.

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.

He should have held off for a bit and you could have all had a nice holiday in Nauru.

All this while the Poms were paying just $ 10 to get here, and were provided with a house.

Well, they did own the ships. And the Harbour Bridge. And Bob Menzies, I think.

See. I've kept my cool, but don't know how long I can do so with posts such as the above.

Would you like me to post some Koala pictures for you? I find they have a calming effect.

 

[Sideroxylon]

The bloody refos of today have it easy.

 

[Akhenaten]

Now when I were a lad . . .

 

[Wildy]

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

Well yes, but you dismissed all of that as "straw".

You have to be kidding me.

Then what exactly do you want? What are you going to do with the boat arrivals if you don't want them processed ahead of those in the camps.

The Pacific Solution violated what treaties?

Oh, so you were talking about the Pacific Solution there and not the laws that we currently have.

Why?

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

You think that letting people rot in refugee camps in Africa is more humane? Really?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

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.

1. Evidence please they have to work here in sweat shops to repay the debt. I can't imagine for one second that criminals would allow anyone to owe them money prior to shipping them off shore.

2. If they survive the journey is a key observation here. If we can stop the boats people don't die.

Then what exactly do you want? What are you going to do with the boat arrivals if you don't want them processed ahead of those in the camps.

Don't make it easy to get here. Stop the boats.
This is where Julia has failed; she was going to stop the boats after all.

Oh, so you were talking about the Pacific Solution there and not the laws that we currently have.

It's an example of how offshore processing will not violate any international treaties which was your claim.

You think that letting people rot in refugee camps in Africa is more humane? Really?

One of us has it back to front. And it is you:

AAA: "which is the more humane? Allowing these boats to come unhindered or letting people rot in refugee camps in (say) Africa?"
Wildy: "Well given the two situations that you've presented the first one is more humane than the second situation,"
AAA: "Why?"
Wildy: "You think that letting people rot in refugee camps in Africa is more humane? Really?"

You have changed your opinion in the space of just a few posts.

So again - and to all:
Which one is more humane?

I have made my case on this issue I believe. In terms of humanity and fairness stopping the boats and processing offshore seems the preferred option to me - I use th PS as the example of a possible solution.

Lax laws that encourage boat arrivals causes people to take risks that see their children and themselves die in the process. It costs us a fortune and leave us with an increased potential for undesirable individuals to stay as a fait accompli.

 

[Wildy]

Don't make it easy to get here. Stop the boats.
This is where Julia has failed; she was going to stop the boats after all.

And the boats that manage to make it here anyway? What would you do with the people?

It's an example of how offshore processing will not violate any international treaties which was your claim.

I don't believe it was.

One of us has it back to front. And it is you:

AAA: "which is the more humane? Allowing these boats to come unhindered or letting people rot in refugee camps in (say) Africa?"
Wildy: "Well given the two situations that you've presented the first one is more humane than the second situation,"
AAA: "Why?"
Wildy: "You think that letting people rot in refugee camps in Africa is more humane? Really?"

You have changed your opinion in the space of just a few posts.

Ok, now I feel pretty certain you never actually read what you wrote when you asked me that question.

Since you don't seem to respond well to logic and reason I'm going to use hyperbole instead to illustrate the problem:

Which is more humane, letting people walk on the beach or sending them to the Killing Fields? According to you it would be the latter.

I have made my case on this issue I believe. In terms of humanity and fairness stopping the boats and processing offshore seems the preferred option to me - I use th PS as the example of a possible solution.

But what will you do with the boats that make it through? In what order will you process them? Will it be 'all asylum claims' then 'resettlement applications' or will it be 'plane arrivals', 'resettlement applications', 'boat people' or will it be 'resettlement applications' then 'all asylum claims'?

Lax laws that encourage boat arrivals causes people to take risks that see their children and themselves die in the process.

What makes our laws lax?

 

[amb]

What to do with the boats? Refuel them, make sure there's enough food and water on board then turn them around. Easy really! Within a couple of months the people smuglers would get the message and look for alternative places.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And the boats that manage to make it here anyway? What would you do with the people?

Determine their bona fides and allow them to stay. But to make it easy to get here causes deaths and jumps the queue.

I don't believe it was.

Then what were you saying?

Ok, now I feel pretty certain you never actually read what you wrote when you asked me that question.

Strange, that's basically what I'm saying to you.

Which is more humane, letting people walk on the beach or sending them to the Killing Fields? According to you it would be the latter.

Straw and obfuscation.

Please answer the question, is the former or the latter more humane and why? I will give you a do over - no consequences or repurcussions from me. We all make mistakes

AAA: "which is the more humane? Allowing these boats to come unhindered or letting people rot in refugee camps in (say) Africa?"

What makes our laws lax?

The lack of an effective underlying policy to start with - the rest rather falls in line from there.

 

[Wildy]

What to do with the boats? Refuel them, make sure there's enough food and water on board then turn them around. Easy really! Within a couple of months the people smuglers would get the message and look for alternative places.

Or they'd just start sinking their boats forcing us to take them.

 

[amb]

Let them. As long as no Australian lives are lost, who cares?

 

[Akhenaten]

What to do with the boats? Refuel them, make sure there's enough food and water on board then turn them around. Easy really!

Amnesty International, the United Nations and the International Court of Justice called. They'd like a word with you.

Within a couple of months the people smuglers would get the message and look for alternative places.

No, within about five minutes the entire world would get the message and look for alternative places to do business.

 

[Akhenaten]

Let them. As long as no Australian lives are lost, who cares?

The non-barbarian population of the world.

 

[amb]

B/S. Less than 20 nations are members of the UN protocol on refugees which has been in existence since the end of the second World War. We are now in the 21st century, far removed from those kind of conditions. Most people here would not bat an eyelid if Australia withdrew from this do-gooder charter.

 

[Wildy]

Determine their bona fides and allow them to stay. But to make it easy to get here causes deaths and jumps the queue.

Because a trip on a leaky boat is easy?

Strange, that's basically what I'm saying to you.

But that mainly stems from your handwaving of any evidence that's provided instead of having to try and understand evidence deficient gibberish.

Straw and obfuscation.

Except that it's neither. Face it, you wrote a nonsensical question for some pointless reason

Please answer the question, is the former or the latter more humane and why? I will give you a do over - no consequences or repurcussions from me.

I have already answered the question but I guess I didn't give the "correct" answer, which appears to be the one that says it's more humane for these people to be somewhere that isn't Australia.

The lack of an effective underlying policy to start with - the rest rather falls in line from there.

What makes the underlying policy ineffective?

 

[Wildy]

B/S. Less than 20 nations are members of the UN protocol on refugees which has been in existence since the end of the second World War.

Then you had better tell that to the UN.

[nitpick]Also the convention has been in existence since the end of WWII, the protocol has only been in existence since 1967[/nitpick]

 

[philkensebben]

Let them. As long as no Australian lives are lost, who cares?

Pleaae stop writing this embarrassing nonsense.

 

[Akhenaten]

B/S. Less than 20 nations are members of the UN protocol on refugees which has been in existence since the end of the second World War.

We are now in the 21st century, far removed from those kind of conditions.

Yes, most of us are in the 21st Century. Others, not so much.

Most people here would not bat an eyelid if Australia withdrew from this do-gooder charter.

Your evidence for this outrageous claim?

 

[amb]

Ask the guy/woman in the street.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Yes and proud of it. Charity begins at home.

A line from the Book of Proverbs and famously used by Paul Keating comes to mind.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Because a trip on a leaky boat is easy?

Whoosh!

But that mainly stems from your handwaving of any evidence that's provided instead of having to try and understand evidence deficient gibberish.

Thus confirming you are not keeping up. Evidence was not in play but opinions: We were discussing you being unable to decide which scenario was the more humane.

Except that it's neither. Face it, you wrote a nonsensical question for some pointless reason

So now you've changed your mind again: From the first scenario, to the second, and now neither within your straw.

Are you Julia Gillard? She can't make her mind up on this issue either.

I have already answered the question but I guess I didn't give the "correct" answer, which appears to be the one that says it's more humane for these people to be somewhere that isn't Australia.

Wrong by a million miles. Your attempts to antagonise are very lame.

Which one, the first or the second? Or do I need to remind you again of the way the discussion rolled?