And the boats keep coming

[Hallo Alfie]

Perhaps you could explain why offshore processing and stopping the boats is so abhorrent?
All I want is to try and understand it. Can you help?

 

[Akhenaten]

Perhaps you could explain why offshore processing and stopping the boats is so abhorrent?
All I want is to try and understand it. Can you help?

It doesn't seem likely, since you seem unshakeably attached to the notion that people here are saying that stopping the boats is abhorrent.

It's exactly the same strawman that AUP cited as a reason for not seeing any value in explaining anything to you, and I have no interest in discussing it either.

 

[uvar]

Perhaps you could explain why offshore processing and stopping the boats is so abhorrent?
All I want is to try and understand it. Can you help?

Luckily we don't have to, since plenty of people have already covered it in more than enough detail.

For instance,
http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/29489
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/turning-back-the-boats-we-should-listen-to-the-navy/
http://www.news.com.au/national/extended-refugee-detention-unacceptable/story-fndo4eg9-1226450493191
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.html#s2

Selection of these particular links does not necessarily imply acceptance on my part of claims made within.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Luckily we don't have to, since plenty of people have already covered it in more than enough detail.

For instance,
http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/29489
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/turning-back-the-boats-we-should-listen-to-the-navy/
http://www.news.com.au/national/extended-refugee-detention-unacceptable/story-fndo4eg9-1226450493191
http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/immigration/idc2009_xmas_island.html#s2

Selection of these particular links does not necessarily imply acceptance on my part of claims made within.

Thanks for that. I read each of them and the amnesty one probably comes closest. They all basically discuss the rights of the asylum seekers, the law and mental health issues. And I would agree that all are valid and need to be in the mix throughout any discussion.

In my opinion (and finally that of Gillard's - which I applaud her for) these points fade to insignificance when we talk of deaths at sea, and to a lesser extent fairness (i.e. the proverbial queue).

As it is, I remain unconvinced that the stand point of the left (prior to the past few days) passes serious scrutiny. Perhaps someone will be brave enough to state the case a bit more clearly, but I doubt it.

 

[uvar]

In my opinion (and finally that of Gillard's - which I applaud her for) these points fade to insignificance when we talk of deaths at sea, and to a lesser extent fairness (i.e. the proverbial queue).

It seems this is where we'll have to agree to disagree - or perhaps agree for different reasons?

There probably is a perfect solution that would stop (the majority of) boats coming without such negative side-effects. But anything approaching that - more precisely, anything without offshore processing - isn't going to happen anytime soon and that's the main reason I'm celebrating these changes at all.

I would imagine the existence of a better option, however unlikely, is why Wilkie and Bandt voted against it - especially since their votes didn't make a difference this time! I would have liked to see Bandt's 12-month limit on refugee detention passed, though, since that's one of my bigger concerns about how this will turn out. Whether or not it's the most appropriate limit at least there would have been one.

Perhaps someone will be brave enough to state the case a bit more clearly, but I doubt it.

This is odd, you seem to be implying cowardice on my part when the reality was simple disinterest. A misunderstanding, I'm sure.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

It seems this is where we'll have to agree to disagree - or perhaps agree for different reasons?

There probably is a perfect solution that would stop (the majority of) boats coming without such negative side-effects. But anything approaching that - more precisely, anything without offshore processing - isn't going to happen anytime soon and that's the main reason I'm celebrating these changes at all.

I would imagine the existence of a better option, however unlikely, is why Wilkie and Bandt voted against it - especially since their votes didn't make a difference this time! I would have liked to see Bandt's 12-month limit on refugee detention passed, though, since that's one of my bigger concerns about how this will turn out. Whether or not it's the most appropriate limit at least there would have been one.

While I can see the idea behind the 12 month limit, it would probably make the trip more attractive and worth the risk. This is what parliament want to avoid and thus the longer detention periods. These periods may even be in line with time spent in refugee camps abroad (although I have yet to see the detail).
While this seems a hard rule it also makes it fair; fair on those waiting in camps elsewhere.

This is odd, you seem to be implying cowardice on my part when the reality was simple disinterest. A misunderstanding, I'm sure.

Indeed; the charge of cowardice was not meant to be directed at you. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

 

[a_unique_person]

The way I am reading this now is that your position on this may actually indefensible.

I have continually stated my case and some of the reasoning behind it. You on the other hand ... well, the laughing dog is indicative of your continued dodges.

I genuinely do not understand the case from the left and never have. Perhaps you could enlighten me, or is it possible the case does not hold water?

You know, for a micro second you actually had me believing you there.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You know, for a micro second you actually had me believing you there.

It's actually true; I really would like to know.
I fail to see how (what I assume is) your position makes sense. You have not explained it, I can really only guess you don't quite believe it either.

I would be more than happy to hear your thoughts on this. Somehow I don't think you've got the ticker.

 

[uvar]

Mr. Bandt's (failed) amendment is here. It wouldn't have set them free after the 12-month period was up, just brought them onshore.

A.A. Alfie, to act as a deterrent the delay is supposed to be similar to the time it would have taken for a direct foreign application, not the typical time in foreign refugee camps. If you're unaware, it's trivial to find examples of people who have spent decades of their lives (or their entire lives, for children!) living in them; I would hope Australia could do better than that. Mr. Bandt also had a few words on the topic:

This parliament and this House should not be asked to approve a piece of legislation before we know for how long a refugee is able to be detained under any of the arrangements struck under this new law. We have heard it said that the period for which someone will be detained may be or is intended to be equivalent to the length of time that it would otherwise have taken for their claim to be processed. We have heard the member for Cook, the shadow minister for immigration, say that that could be 10 years. We have heard other people say that, in some instances, because there is no queue in some of these places it could be a lifetime.

 

[Wildy]

I think the open ended nature of the detention will be something that will face a challenge through the courts. This of course depends on if it passes the Senate tomorrow.

I would expect the Greens to make another attempt at getting an amendment similar to Brandt's in the legislation.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Mr. Bandt's (failed) amendment is here. It wouldn't have set them free after the 12-month period was up, just brought them onshore.

Fair enough.

A.A. Alfie, to act as a deterrent the delay is supposed to be similar to the time it would have taken for a direct foreign application, not the typical time in foreign refugee camps.

Thanks for the correction here. Have you a source?

If you're unaware, it's trivial to find examples of people who have spent decades of their lives (or their entire lives, for children!) living in them; I would hope Australia could do better than that. Mr. Bandt also had a few words on the topic:[/QUOTE]

I don't think it trivial. There are tens of thousands waiting a decade or more, these are not trivial numbers.

I think the open ended nature of the detention will be something that will face a challenge through the courts. This of course depends on if it passes the Senate tomorrow.

I would expect the Greens to make another attempt at getting an amendment similar to Brandt's in the legislation.

And it will be a futile attempt.
The Greens are totally irrelevant now and more importantly completely on the nose in the eyes of the public.

 

[uvar]

Thanks for the correction here. Have you a source?

<snip my quote>

I don't think it trivial. There are tens of thousands waiting a decade or more, these are not trivial numbers.

I said that it was trivial to find examples (i.e. there were many), not that the number of examples was trivial.

As for the source on the delay deterrent... there isn't one. It's the most charitable reading of the report:

The application of a ‘no advantage’ principle to ensure that no benefit is gained through circumventing regular migration arrangements.

 

[Wildy]

And it will be a futile attempt.
The Greens are totally irrelevant now and more importantly completely on the nose in the eyes of the public.

And a potential court case?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And a potential court case?

About what? By whom? And why would it have a chance when parliament make the laws?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I said that it was trivial to find examples (i.e. there were many), not that the number of examples was trivial.

Either way, I find it hard to coinsider the examples trivial. It would be like saying those that come on the boats (es examples) are trivial. Neither is true.

As for the source on the delay deterrent... there isn't one. It's the most charitable reading of the report:

I see. Then we are both simply reading it differently and either of us could be right or wrong?

 

[Akhenaten]

And a potential court case?

About what?

Open-ended detention.

By whom?

David Manne, for one. There's no shortage of lawyers.

And why would it have a chance when parliament make the laws?

You don't seem to understand the function of the High Court of Australia very well.

 

[Akhenaten]

I said that it was trivial to find examples (i.e. there were many), not that the number of examples was trivial.

Either way, I find it hard to coinsider the examples trivial. It would be like saying those that come on the boats (es examples) are trivial. Neither is true.

There is no either/or about it. It was stated that finding examples was trivial, which it is.

Your misunderstanding of that statement as meaning that the examples themselves are trivial is not a valid opposing view to what was stated. It is an error of comprehension on your part and nothing more.

As for the source on the delay deterrent... there isn't one. It's the most charitable reading of the report:

The application of a ‘no advantage’ principle to ensure that no benefit is gained through circumventing regular migration arrangements.

quote restored by Akhenaten

I see. Then we are both simply reading it differently and either of us could be right or wrong?

No, your theory about making the time spent in detention comparable to time spent in foriegn refugee camps is demonstrably a WAG, while the idea that it's meant to be comparable to the time taken to process a direct foreign application is a quite reasonable interpretation of the recommendation.

Snipping out the bits of posts that show this to be the case is unlikely to fool anyone into thinking that your opinion and that expressed by uvar are equally likely to be correct.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

There is no either/or about it.

Sure there is.

No, your theory about making the time spent in detention comparable to time spent in foriegn refugee camps is demonstrably a WAG,

Why? Please demonstrate it for me.

while the idea that it's meant to be comparable to the time taken to process a direct foreign application is a quite reasonable interpretation of the recommendation.

I agree. It is one interpretation.

Snipping out the bits of posts that show this to be the case is unlikely to fool anyone into thinking that your opinion and that expressed by uvar are equally likely to be correct.

It seems to me that in the absense of expert interpretation either can be possible. Have you got one?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You don't seem to understand the function of the High Court of Australia very well.

Do not parliament make the laws?
Once the Malaysian solution was rejected by the High court, did not the yabbie seek support from the opposition to then create new laws to allow Malaysia? Why would she do this?

I am no lawyer but why is my comment regarding parliament and the laws lacking understanding?

 

[Akhenaten]

There is no either/or about it.

Sure there is.

This is what the comment you're pretending to answer looked like this before you snipped most of it.

There is no either/or about it. It was stated that finding examples was trivial, which it is.

Your misunderstanding of that statement as meaning that the examples themselves are trivial is not a valid opposing view to what was stated. It is an error of comprehension on your part and nothing more.

The practice of posting a snappy-looking response to a phrase arbitrarily removed from its context doesn't work anywhere near as well as you might like to think it does.

No, your theory about making the time spent in detention comparable to time spent in foriegn refugee camps is demonstrably a WAG,

Why? Please demonstrate it for me.

These periods may even be in line with time spent in refugee camps abroad (although I have yet to see the detail).

while the idea that it's meant to be comparable to the time taken to process a direct foreign application is a quite reasonable interpretation of the recommendation.

I agree. It is one interpretation.

Progress.

Snipping out the bits of posts that show this to be the case is unlikely to fool anyone into thinking that your opinion and that expressed by uvar are equally likely to be correct.

It seems to me that in the absense of expert interpretation either can be possible. Have you got one?

Yes, thank you.