And the boats keep coming

[amb]

So, you are going to believe and espouse his assessment of the border situation, but you will disregard what he says about "having nothing" because in your mind he's not a "real refugee" but a "queue jumper"? Very interesting technique of comprehension there.

Are you forgetting he paid more than $10.000? You can scream and yell until the cows come home. You cannot say this is a real refugee. Real refugees are trapped and waiting their turn in UN run camps in Africa to be taken to countries that signed the UN charter which number about 20 Western World countries. Real refugees who only have the clothes on their backs and in some cases malnutritiond, not the picture of health looking so-called asylum seekers. A while ago there was even a body builder seeking asylum. I have nothing against people trying to better themselves. What my beef is with illegal migrants which these people are. Jumping the queue stops real refugees from been re-settled.

 

[Skepticemea]

Are you forgetting he paid more than $10.000? You can scream and yell until the cows come home. You cannot say this is a real refugee. Real refugees are trapped and waiting their turn in UN run camps in Africa to be taken to countries that signed the UN charter which number about 20 Western World countries. Real refugees who only have the clothes on their backs and in some cases malnutritiond, not the picture of health looking so-called asylum seekers. A while ago there was even a body builder seeking asylum. I have nothing against people trying to better themselves. What my beef is with illegal migrants which these people are. Jumping the queue stops real refugees from been re-settled.

Only Africans can be refugees? Seriously, is that your definition of a refugee? Someone in a camp in Africa...

 

[amb]

All refugees who wait their turn in refugee camps wherever they may be, to be re-settled legally by the UN should be supported. Don't you see that by having thousands of illegal queue jumpers stops the orderly re-settlement of these genuine people.

 

[Skepticemea]

All refugees who wait their turn in refugee camps wherever they may be, to be re-settled legally by the UN should be supported. Don't you see that by having thousands of illegal queue jumpers stops the orderly re-settlement of these genuine people.

So, correct me if I've the wrong end of this, but your contention is that people who are suffering in their own countries should make their way to a UN set-up refugee camp and await orderly transition to a country that is willing to take them?

If that is your position it highlights how little you know about the horrors of refugee camps. They are places where people who cannot go anywhere else end up and not relief destinations. Neither are they resettlement hubs. How in hell (which a lot of these places resemble) are the UN going to resettle (for example) the 300,000 refugees that escaped Rwanda to Kibumba, DRC?

Your position appears to be couched in distaste rather than compassion.

 

[amb]

And you have compassion for people who pay up to $10.000 to smugglers to get into a host country illegally yet you show less compassion for the over 1 million genuine refugees?

 

[Skepticemea]

And you have compassion for people who pay up to $10.000 to smugglers to get into a host country illegally yet you show less compassion for the over 1 million genuine refugees?

No, that's the position you're assigning to me to make your own appear less uncaring. And if you think the refugee total across the globe is 1 million you're are very badly informed.

 

[amb]

I know there's much more. That brings up another subject. The overpopulation of this planet. But what would you have the West do? A free for all? You can't see that policy would quickly turn a host country into the place these people hail from?

 

[Wildy]

No, I would rather that they were alive. How hard is it for you to understand this most basic of concepts?

Oh I understand this concept. It's just that you want them alive in some place that isn't Australia.

They are a side issue and far less relevant. You can discuss them if you like, I will stick to my main points.

I see, you just don't want to defend your positions and now you're trying to get out of it.

A technique I use?

Yes. One of the many rhetorical techniques that you use because you seem to think that your arguments can't stand up to proper critique. It's like how you use the dead as a shield against criticism.

Either way, if you want to meander off into irrelevant land go ahead, I don't believe I have to follow.

Then stop pestering others with your irrelevant meanders and expecting a response.

I know a coward when I see one; they usually use terms like "racist" or "sexist" when they have run out of valid points.

Well good thing I wasn't the one to use terms like "racist" or "sexist" then. Considering that you were the one to cry "racism" I'd say that you are projecting here.

Question me on points I make all you like. But don't pester me with your own irrelevant diversions. Fair enough?

So how is the following irrelevant?

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'?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

The stats were the same during the Howard era

Rubbish!

Could you point us to the legislative reforms enacted by the Howard Goverment in its first 12-18 months in office that led to the first surge in 20ish years?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Could you point us to the legislative reforms enacted by the Howard Goverment in its first 12-18 months in office that led to the first surge in 20ish years?

[qimg]http://www.yopinion.com.au/content/upload/images/issues/refugees/boat_arrival_graph.jpg[/qimg]

The claim were that the stats were the same. They weren't under the PS. If you want to say that they were the same prior to the PS, I could agree at a pinch.

You can also clearly see when the PS was implemented and then dismantled.
Coincidence huh?

 

[Sceptic-PK]

The claim were that the stats were the same.

Correct, that was the claim. I was quoting for context. You didn't answer my question. If the primary driver of illegal immigration is government policy, what changed in the years mentioned?

They weren't under the PS. If you want to say that they were the same prior to the PS, I could agree at a pinch.

When you say this, do you mean you agree that the period between 1976 and ~1997 is similar to the years Pacific Solution years after ~2003? And if that is what you are saying, why such emphasis on the PS for "stopping the boats" when no PS achieved much the same for 2 decades?

You can also clearly see when the PS was implemented and then dismantled.
Coincidence huh?

Oh, I don't deny some small correlation at all. But neither you nor amb have convinced me of anything more significant, certainly not compared to the previously provided data on global asylum seekers. That's the only reason I am here really. I've already admitted I couldn't give a toss re the emotive arguments. I'd just like to know the facts.

 

[Skepticemea]

I know there's much more. That brings up another subject. The overpopulation of this planet. But what would you have the West do? A free for all? You can't see that policy would quickly turn a host country into the place these people hail from?

Let's stick to the one subject, shall we? Do you have proof that immigrants that arrive in Australia by boat paid their travel "fee" up front? Indentured servitude (lets call it slavery) is common in other parts of the world where people are illegally shipped from piss poor parts of the world but you appear to be painting a picture of a pleasure cruise with "economic migrants" leaving their yachts with Nikons round their necks.

If they had the amounts of money in their country that you assume they've paid up front they'd be pretty well off.

 

[Wildy]

I'd just like to know the facts.

Well if you're interested in worldwide facts I'd suggest taking a look at the Asylum Levels and Trends in Industrialized Countries reports from the UNHCR. As I mentioned before that is where the graph you posted in this thread came from. I will mentioned that the further back in time you go the crappier the reports look.

If you're looking for data from the Australian Government try looking at some of the documents here. There is a single pdf for the 2010-11 asylum trends, the asylum data for the other years is in the sections marked "population flows", under chapter 2 part 4.

 

[philkensebben]

I find the West a neutral source of news. Perhaps it's because I don't look for any bias.

Has this replaced that god awful drivel they use to spew out under the title 'The West Australian' ?

 

[wombatwal]

I really do think this has come to a point where partisan politics should go, that is the latest boat sinking off the Indonesian coast.
Labor tried to get some talks going to find common ground. The conservatives are only interested if they have a concrete idea up front.
I think this shows the negative, combativeness of Abbott. His nick name of "Attack Dog Abbott" has not been there for many, many years for no reason.
This issue has now gone past political point scoring and both sides of politics should get together and at least try. I am disgusted by the oppositions stance.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It's not an "easy touch", that's a slight to the hard working men and women on our immigration frontline.

Except that this "slight" was directed at the government not the frontline personnel.
Fail.

Correct, that was the claim. I was quoting for context. You didn't answer my question. If the primary driver of illegal immigration is government policy, what changed in the years mentioned?

I'll let you inform us, this is your point after all.

When you say this, do you mean you agree that the period between 1976 and ~1997 is similar to the years Pacific Solution years after ~2003? And if that is what you are saying, why such emphasis on the PS for "stopping the boats" when no PS achieved much the same for 2 decades?

To be honest I could only speculate. Perhaps you could fill us in on what you think happened and why it is relevant to what is happening now.

That the numbers were the same was BPs assertion. Which ones? The way I read it I related to the PS period. Perhaps BP would deign to inform us exactly what he meant.

Oh, I don't deny some small correlation at all.

Very small?!? Are you kidding?

But neither you nor amb have convinced me of anything more significant, certainly not compared to the previously provided data on global asylum seekers.

Data which is devoid of lower level information. Information that was asked for and not provided. I honestly don't think we can use that as a guide at this point for reasons previously mentioned.

That's the only reason I am here really. I've already admitted I couldn't give a toss re the emotive arguments. I'd just like to know the facts.

Got it: People dead. Don't care.

I really do think this has come to a point where partisan politics should go, that is the latest boat sinking off the Indonesian coast.
Labor tried to get some talks going to find common ground. The conservatives are only interested if they have a concrete idea up front.
I think this shows the negative, combativeness of Abbott. His nick name of "Attack Dog Abbott" has not been there for many, many years for no reason.
This issue has now gone past political point scoring and both sides of politics should get together and at least try. I am disgusted by the oppositions stance.

I am disgusted by both. But Labor smells far worse. I don't even want to start discussing the morons Greens whose policies we effectively have right now - I hope they are happy.

That said, the government is playing politics by making knowingly hollow offers to discuss the issues. I think it is not unreasonable for Abbott to say 'what will we discuss?. Why do I say reasonable? There are quite a few reasons: Labor have consistently played their own games around this for some time and haven proven themselves to be very sneaky; why would Abbott believe an olive branch now, there was a full year to discuss this why now after parliament has stood down; what could there possibly be new to discuss - Labor have emphatically stated they would not negotiate with the coalition; etc etc

Then to hold a press conference effectively blaming Abbott for the disaster was disgusting. They are in government, they have the power, they have a marriage with the greens and independents, they get to control the agenda, they get to control the timing, they failed on this policy at every hurdle, they dismantled PS, they have mismanaged the politics, they have flip flopped all over the country, etc etc

Labor stink on this issue.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

To be honest I could only speculate. Perhaps you could fill us in on what you think happened and why it is relevant to what is happening now.

So, that’s a “no, I can’t explain” then is it? What I think happened is rather obvious. More asylum seekers existed due to global conditions, which increased the rate of illegal movements worldwide, and being part of the world, Australia saw a corresponding increase. Since it is your assertion that policy is the driving force behind illegal immigration, you need to explain the previous spike in those terms. If you can’t, your position is untenable.

That the numbers were the same was BPs assertion. Which ones?

The numbers in ~1997-~2001. Howard was PM then. They’re not relatively similar to ~2008+?

Very small?!? Are you kidding?

Not kidding. Again, you haven’t present a shred of evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. When is that going to happen btw?

Data which is devoid of lower level information. Information that was asked for and not provided. I honestly don't think we can use that as a guide at this point for reasons previously mentioned.

Haha. We get it, you can make unsubstantiated assertions without need for evidence, yet we must provide “lower level” information for evidence we provide. That sounds fair!

Got it: People dead. Don't care.

At least I’m honest. You don’t really care either. You like the political football and an opportunity to bash the “worst government ever”. If you actually cared about these people your solution wouldn’t involve mandatory incarceration in countries with less than stellar records re treatment of asylum seekers. You just enjoy the emotional effect of “children die!” but you’re not fooling anyone here.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So, that’s a “no, I can’t explain” then is it?

Not quite.

What I think happened is rather obvious. More asylum seekers existed due to global conditions, which increased the rate of illegal movements worldwide, and being part of the world, Australia saw a corresponding increase.

And you can prove this no doubt?

Since it is your assertion that policy is the driving force behind illegal immigration, you need to explain the previous spike in those terms. If you can’t, your position is untenable.

First of all you will need to prove that global conditions 20 odd years ago have a direct correlation to today and that policy today has a correlation to then. You haven't and as such my apparently untenable position remains quite stable.

Not kidding. Again, you haven’t present a shred of evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. When is that going to happen btw?

This is laughable. You dismiss actual low level boat arrival numbers first as a "very small correlation"non correlating. Then you say that the high level broad brush refugees numbers as correlating evidence proving you right.

Like I said, laughable.

 

[Wildy]

It's amusing to see Alfie demand proof from others when he's been so averse to providing proof himself.

 

[Legend]

And he's been the one making all the crazy claims from the start. It's a bit hilarious.