And the boats keep coming

Wildy said:
Well if the Coalition re-introduce their policy of not allowing family reunion rights to boat arrivals then that is a very real possibility isn't it?
Click to expand...

Not really. It would simply mean that people wouldn't get on boats. That is the end game for both the coalition and Labor.
 
Wildy said:
Because that worked so well in the past didn't it *cough*SIEV X*cough*. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Er.... Except that SIEV X happened in 2001 which was before the Pacific Solution was implemented in 2002. Correct me if I am wrong, but the non family reunion (in conjunction with TPVs) came with the Pacific Solution and after SIEV X.
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
Er.... Except that SIEV X happened in 2001 which was before the Pacific Solution was implemented in 2002. Correct me if I am wrong, but the non family reunion (in conjunction with TPVs) came with the Pacific Solution and after SIEV X.
Click to expand...

A lack of family reunion rights was part of the TPVs, which came in to force on 20 October 1999.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Maybe I am missing something in there, but I can't see what you are stating anywhere.
Click to expand...

Is that because you are expecting something in MASSIVE LETTERS AND ALL CAPS? Or is it that you stopped reading after the second paragraph?

So since you can't be bothered to actually look at the link, I'll just let you look at this Wikipedia one instead.
 
Hey look I believe you about the dates. But I read the whole thing and didn't see it.
Please show me where it is on your first link.

And why would you need to give me another link if it was in there in the first place anyway?

There was this. But it doesn't outline the start date - not really:
If they arrive unlawfully or on fraudulent documents, applied for protection visas on or after 20 October 1999 and are found to require protection, they may be granted a temporary protection visa which provides temporary residence for three years in the first instance.

But doesn't mention the reunification anywhere that I saw.
 
Last edited:
Wildy said:
Is that because you are expecting something in MASSIVE LETTERS AND ALL CAPS? Or is it that you stopped reading after the second paragraph?

So since you can't be bothered to actually look at the link, I'll just let you look at this Wikipedia one instead.
Click to expand...

A.A. Alfie said:
Hey look I believe you about the dates. But I read the whole thing and didn't see it.
Please show me where it is on your first link.

And why would you need to give me another link if it was in there in the first place anyway?

There was this. But it doesn't outline the start date - not really:
If they arrive unlawfully or on fraudulent documents, applied for protection visas on or after 20 October 1999 and are found to require protection, they may be granted a temporary protection visa which provides temporary residence for three years in the first instance.

But doesn't mention the reunification anywhere that I saw.
Click to expand...

Waiting.....
 
Oh so that's what you're complaining about. It wouldn't surprise me that you would believe that the lack of family reunion rights came after SIEV X, since in the past you've refused to believe that they played a part in the disaster.

I believe you said that the reason why so many women and children were on the boat was down to something along the lines of "they already bought their seat" or some rubbish.

Since I can't be bothered going through the Immigration Department website I'll just leave you with this from the Refugee Council dated November 1999.
 
No, I told you I believe you about the detail. I do not believe the information you were screaming that was in the link you originally gave was actually there. Show me.
 
Last edited:
The bit I thought you were complaining about (the date) is in there. I have already admitted that I didn't understand what you were complaining about.
 
Wildy said:
The bit I thought you were complaining about (the date) is in there. I have already admitted that I didn't understand what you were complaining about.
Click to expand...

We were talking specifically about family reunion rights, yet you didn't know I was talking about family reunion rights. I understand. Yeah right.:rolleyes:

What I think you really mean is you were wrong and apologise for your
Edited by Tricky: 
Edited for civility.
outburst. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A.A. Alfie said:
What I think you really mean is you were wrong and apologise for your infantile outburst. :)
Click to expand...

Ok, I was wrong in posting that source. The fact of the matter is that the lack of family reunion rights were part of the TPVs when they were implemented in 1999.
 
a_unique_person said:
What's your thought on a compromise that isn't?
Click to expand...

I have already answered that.
I actually hate the idea of Malaysia but if the coalition made the concession I would be more happy than I am now. At least we would have a policy in place and the deaths would hopefully stop.

That said, I also understand the coalitions position:
- they had a policy they say works - the numbers certainly suggest it.
- they have had the policy for 10 years.
- they are not in coalition with the government - the government have their green allies and independents in partnership.
- this is completely Labor's mess and they can fix it by "using the parliament they have been given" and if that means the coalition's policy, so be it.

I also understand the greens refusal to budge. Their problem is that their policies have caused the deaths of up to 800 people so far. Their policy is inhumane, expensive and just so wrong morally it makes me sick to my guts.

What are your thoughts on Malaysia?
Which policy best reflects your position?

Wildy said:
Ok, I was wrong in posting that source.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
And you apologise?

a_unique_person said:
The fact of the matter is that the lack of family reunion rights were part of the TPVs when they were implemented in 1999.
Click to expand...

I was never disagreeing with you on this and was always confident you knew your stuff.
In fact I am glad to have someone in this discussion who actually has some knowledge of the issue - even if we do disagree politically.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom