And the boats keep coming

Wildy said:
Why though? Why should we be the ones to ask for clarification because you're too lazy to make yourself clear in the first place?
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, we can all be unclear from time to time - communication is an interesting and inaccurate thing. It amazes me that humans manage to relay effectively their thoughts at all sometimes.

So I am unclear, all one needs do is ask for clarification from me and I will provide it.

Meanwhile, and tellingly, BP will not provide any for his.

lionking said:
You assume that people care enough about your opinion to ask you to articulate.
Click to expand...

LOL
Then why are you responding now. :boggled:
It's even more funny given you nip constantly at my heels. It's like having my own personal troll fan club.:)
 
Last edited:
So to bring this thread back on topic I'll ask everyone who isn't Alfie a question:

If you were given the ability to implement any border security policy that you wanted, what kind of policy would you create?
 
Wildy said:
So to bring this thread back on topic I'll ask everyone who isn't Alfie a question:

If you were given the ability to implement any border security policy that you wanted, what kind of policy would you create?
Click to expand...

That is the million dollar question, Wildy. My goals would be:

- To reduce the time spent in detention while being processed.
- To not have children in detention.
- To reduce the number of people embarking on dangerous boat journeys.

I recognize that the success in the first goal may well lead to failure in the last goal.

Perhaps we can make refugee processing easier through key Australian embassies in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Perhaps we can make refugee processing easier through key Australian embassies in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Click to expand...

Doubling or tripling our intake wouldn't hurt either. I reckon we need a floating cap too so that we can accommodate fluctuations in global demand or when we have a regional crisis as per the collapse of the Tamil tigers in Sri Lanka last year.
 
Last edited:
Wildy said:
So to bring this thread back on topic I'll ask everyone who isn't Alfie a question:

If you were given the ability to implement any border security policy that you wanted, what kind of policy would you create?
Click to expand...

- Back to Nauru to stop the boats.
- Increase our annual intake.
- A joint regional venture in conjunction with the UNHCR to establish camps in (say) Malaysia for potential boat people to access and register for asylum/refugee status.
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
- Back to Nauru to stop the boats.
- Increase our annual intake.
- A joint regional venture in conjunction with the UNHCR to establish camps in (say) Malaysia for potential boat people to access and register for asylum/refugee status.
Click to expand...

How would going back to Nauru stop the boats?
 
Wildy said:
So to bring this thread back on topic I'll ask everyone who isn't Alfie a question:

If you were given the ability to implement any border security policy that you wanted, what kind of policy would you create?
Click to expand...


At the moment I can't think of anything to improve on these answers:


Sideroxylon said:
That is the million dollar question, Wildy. My goals would be:

- To reduce the time spent in detention while being processed.
- To not have children in detention.
- To reduce the number of people embarking on dangerous boat journeys.

I recognize that the success in the first goal may well lead to failure in the last goal.

Perhaps we can make refugee processing easier through key Australian embassies in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Click to expand...

bit_pattern said:
Doubling or tripling our intake wouldn't hurt either. I reckon we need a floating cap too so that we can accommodate fluctuations in global demand or when we have a regional crisis as per the collapse of the Tamil tigers in Sri Lanka last year.
Click to expand...
 
This may be a naive reply.
But, I think the U.N. should step up to the line and set up "orderly":) refugee centres in areas close to trouble spots to stop people making hazardous trips.
These centres would quickly asses for refugee status. Once a status is found, that is refugee, suitable countries should take these people in an orderly manner.
Am I being naive?
 
wombatwal said:
This may be a naive reply.
But, I think the U.N. should step up to the line and set up "orderly":) refugee centres in areas close to trouble spots to stop people making hazardous trips.
These centres would quickly asses for refugee status. Once a status is found, that is refugee, suitable countries should take these people in an orderly manner.
Am I being naive?
Click to expand...

Maybe. But that is the essence of one of my points above.
 
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/tv-ban-on-asylum-seekers/story-fn7x8me2-1226231495771

TV stations may be banned from showing images of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat, The Australian reported today.

If this is true one has to wonder about the motives.
I fail to see how the privacy of the refugees is an issue, I'd have thought they would have wanted us to know of their plight. It rings more like Gillard and/or the Immigration Dept are endeavouring to stifle discussion, manage adverse press and get some control on the issue.

Gillard has form in silencing debate too.

Ask yourself this, if Howard had made the same ruling under his watch, what would have been the attitude?

eta. If you're interested, here's the Australian's report. It will also be interesting to see if the Drum, Age etc cover this - I haven't seen anything in them so far.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...of-boat-arrivals/story-fn9hm1gu-1226231422676

Linda Briskman, professor of human rights education at Curtin University, said blocking pictures of detainees was a form of censorship. "From a public-interest perspective, it is hard to justify," she said.

Professor Briskman, who regularly visits detainees and has documented their stories as co-author of Human Rights Overboard, said it was important to see the hope, relief and happiness of people who had fled danger for a new life in Australia.

"By not portraying the human face of the asylum-seeker, they become dehumanised, criminalised and it's easier for people to ignore their suffering," she said. "Photos allow us to empathise, especially when we look into the eyes of children."

It isn't just the arrivals by boat but also those in detention. Again, I ask what would have been the attitude if this occurred under a coalition government?
 
Last edited:
Wildy said:
So to bring this thread back on topic I'll ask everyone who isn't Alfie a question:

If you were given the ability to implement any border security policy that you wanted, what kind of policy would you create?
Click to expand...

A genuine regional protection framework

Lifting protection standards in the region so they can safely apply for UNHCR protection in Malaysia or Indonesia, with faster assessment and resettlement options will take away the need for refugees to risk their lives on the high seas.

A return simply to offshore processing would set back genuine progress on regional cooperation, and provide no incentive for Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand to sign up to the Refugee Convention.

Providing safe pathways and durable solutions for asylum seekers in our region can be achieved by:

  • Increasing our Humanitarian Intake from 13,750 to up to 25,000;
  • Providing greater support to Indonesia and Malaysia and the UNHCR in these countries for faster processing and re-settling of asylum seekers;
  • Establishing targeted in-country resettlement programs in countries like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka
  • Committing to directly resettle several thousand genuine refugees from Malaysia and Indonesia per year;
  • Working cooperatively with regional governments to provide basic protections (without fear of arbitrary detention or expulsion) while waiting for durable resettlement options – consistent with the Refugee Convention.
  • Actively encouraging all countries to implement anti-people smuggling laws that punish the people smugglers, not the asylum seekers.
Ignoring our international obligations to assess people’s claims on-shore by expelling them to Nauru or Malaysia or elsewhere for short-term political gain won’t prevent people who will continue to try escaping persecution.

Onshore assessments can work. Here are four measures which, combined with a genuine regional protection framework, can be implemented right now:
  • Ensure we are not locking up people in detention unnecessarily, a practice followed by every other signatory to the convention;
  • Introduce 30-day time-limits on detention – health & security checks, with assessment of refugee claims to be done in community;
  • Provide judicial review of detention any longer than 30 days (where needed);
  • Establish a Commonwealth Commissioner for Children and Young People, to provide unaccompanied minors with a legal guardian, who is not the Minister of the day.
It's time for the Government to take a long-term, durable approach to protecting refugees and asylum seekers within our immediate region. A return to failed policies of the past that damaged vulnerable people should not even be an option.

http://greensmps.org.au/content/genuine-regional-protection-framework
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/tv-ban-on-asylum-seekers/story-fn7x8me2-1226231495771

TV stations may be banned from showing images of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat, The Australian reported today.

If this is true one has to wonder about the motives.
I fail to see how the privacy of the refugees is an issue, I'd have thought they would have wanted us to know of their plight. It rings more like Gillard and/or the Immigration Dept are endeavouring to stifle discussion, manage adverse press and get some control on the issue.

Gillard has form in silencing debate too.

Ask yourself this, if Howard had made the same ruling under his watch, what would have been the attitude?

eta. If you're interested, here's the Australian's report. It will also be interesting to see if the Drum, Age etc cover this - I haven't seen anything in them so far.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...of-boat-arrivals/story-fn9hm1gu-1226231422676

Linda Briskman, professor of human rights education at Curtin University, said blocking pictures of detainees was a form of censorship. "From a public-interest perspective, it is hard to justify," she said.

Professor Briskman, who regularly visits detainees and has documented their stories as co-author of Human Rights Overboard, said it was important to see the hope, relief and happiness of people who had fled danger for a new life in Australia.

"By not portraying the human face of the asylum-seeker, they become dehumanised, criminalised and it's easier for people to ignore their suffering," she said. "Photos allow us to empathise, especially when we look into the eyes of children."

It isn't just the arrivals by boat but also those in detention. Again, I ask what would have been the attitude if this occurred under a coalition government?
Click to expand...

If there is no noise about this then opposition is asleep and Greens and Democrats too.
 
Sideroxylon said:
That is the million dollar question, Wildy. My goals would be:

- To reduce the time spent in detention while being processed.
- To not have children in detention.
- To reduce the number of people embarking on dangerous boat journeys.

I recognize that the success in the first goal may well lead to failure in the last goal.

Perhaps we can make refugee processing easier through key Australian embassies in Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Click to expand...

As I see it one of the reasons why people go to the smugglers is because it's difficult for these people to use safer modes of transport to get here and apply for asylum. I figure that by changing this you'd be able to reduce the number of people embarking on these dangerous boat journeys, the problem is that you can't seem to explain it to people without them thinking that I want to remove all border controls, as demonstrated earlier in this thread.
 
Sideroxylon said:
If there is no noise about this then opposition is asleep and Greens and Democrats too.
Click to expand...

The story seems to be gathering some momentum now. Nothing yet from the left news sources like The Age, The Drum etc that I have seen. I reckon the next 48 hours will see some action if there is anything to it.

But assuming this next stage of censorship is right, what are people's thoughts?
 
Wildy said:
As I see it one of the reasons why people go to the smugglers is because it's difficult for these people to use safer modes of transport to get here and apply for asylum.
Click to expand...

And the obvious follow up question to this is "Why is it difficult?"
 
The Drum is a "left source"! Yeeeaah, maybe, if you're right of Atilla the Hun :rolleyes: It's the second biggest dispenser of cliamte denial, hardly a "left wing source"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom