And the boats keep coming

[Legend]

Prevention is better than cure, as they say.

Wait a second... that's a genius idea!

Let's fix Iran!

 

[Akhenaten]

Can I just say that white Australians complaining about immigration, and, for bonus points, by criminals, has let me start the day with a smile.

But . . . but . . . these aren't true immigrants.

 

[Legend]

Can I just say that white Australians complaining about immigration, and, for bonus points, by criminals, has let me start the day with a smile.

One of which is an Italian immigrant himself, don't let's forget.

 

[Akhenaten]

The Pacific solution. No asylum seeker allowed onto the mainland until verified a true refugee. It seemed to work did it not? The boats were just a trickle in the last few months of the previous government compared to the more than a dozen boatloads in less than three weeks.

But isn't it true that worldwide refugee applications peaked on a 20 year high in 2001, and fell by around 50% by 2006? Since this period was concurrent with the Pacific Solution how were you able to determine that the reduction in boat numbers was due to that solution and not to other, unrelated factors?

This is just the beginning, watch this space in the next few months.

Is the JREF Forum a refugee destination now?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And just how would you have screened this bloke perhaps with no priors or poor documentation?

How do you know he has no priors and no documentation? Just because he is from Iran and came by boat? Easy to make assumptions isn't it?
I would be accused of racism for articulating thoughts that way.

If he never arrived here he would not be molesting our children.

But I notice that you have not answered my question, what do we do with him?

One reason we might not ship him back is because he could be executed at home. We should not be deporting anyone into that kind of situation. My sister has the unenviable job of being involved in such decisions.

I agree. He was quite safe where he was - somewhere between Iran and Australia. He could apply for asylum virtually anywhere and wait his turn like other around the world.

Or, is it possible that he wouldn't do that because he would not be accepted by us? Speculation I know, but worth considering.

Wait a second... that's a genius idea!

Let's fix Iran!

I notice you don't answer the obvious question here either.

What do we do with him?

But isn't it true that worldwide refugee applications peaked on a 20 year high in 2001, and fell by around 50% by 2006? Since this period was concurrent with the Pacific Solution how were you able to determine that the reduction in boat numbers was due to that solution and not to other, unrelated factors?

World numbers dropped by 50%, ours dropped substantially more than that. In terms of boats we had on average three per year for the last six years of the PS - say 2003 to 2009. The moment the PS was dismantled, the numbers went up disproportionally as well.

We have had 11 boats this fortnight. Coincidence? Doubtful, the push factors seem less now than they were a few short years ago.

More boats will come and tragically more deaths will almost certainly follow.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I agree. He was quite safe where he was - somewhere between Iran and Australia. He could apply for asylum virtually anywhere and wait his turn like other around the world.

Morally and legally we must not hold people indefinitely.

 

[amb]

Even if they are child molesters or worse?

 

[Wildy]

As I understand it we are unable to return this bloke because Iran will not accept their own people back.

That and we many not be able to legally do so because of the various treaties that we've signed.

After he's done his time, what do we do with him? You say "it's a little more difficult". Well duh!
You would simply happily release him into the community, I guess? Give him welfare, a home and a job - and then let him bring the rest of his family over?

Quite frankly I don't have a clue about what we would do with him after he has served his sentence. Then again considering how those convicted of sex crimes have a lower recidivism rate compared to other criminals I guess you could release him into the community, whether a community would accept him is another matter. What do you propose? Lock him in a detention centre for the rest of his life?

In the meantime he has cost the Australian public a fortune in detention costs, legal fees, gaol (presumably) and welfare. All this for a criminal and (it seems) a paedophile.

That's assuming that he's guilty of course, which is seems rather clear that you think he is.

This is one of the reasons why we need strong border protection laws; we do not need potential criminals arriving leaving us in situation that is a fait accompli.

And yet you see no problem in letting the plane arrivals into the community while their claims are being processed despite the fact that they too could be "potential criminals".

Prevention is better than cure, as they say.

In this case it seems that it depends on what we're trying to prevent. It sounds like you want to prevent these people from ever getting to Australia.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Even if they are child molesters or worse?

Is that usually a life sentence? A lets not forget that most of the rest are simply illegal rivals or people who have attempted to do so.

 

[lionking]

Can I just say that white Australians complaining about immigration, and, for bonus points, by criminals, has let me start the day with a smile.

Yup. A nation of immigrants. But as the Pharaoh said, they must be the right immigrants.

 

[lionking]

i guess amb is living in a part of australia where you have to fly an hour to meet your neihbors, and when you then see Sidney in TV you surely can get the impression that it is overpopulated there

Very perceptive DC.

 

[Skepticemea]

I got up this morning and noticed I had a notification about this thread receiving more replies (how the hell do you turn off "subscribe" by the way?) and I had a sinking feeling in my stomach. I wish I'd emailed you, Phil, to announce my prescience that a story about a child molesting immigrant would soon make these pages.

Over in Britain the same argument is used about terrorists. I've been on the wrong side of that argument. Thanks, amb et al, for showing me how bigoted I must have appeared.

The law is the law, but above that there's humanity. If you believe that holding people in camps for decades is okay because it stops paedophiles emigrating to Australia, then you've just conflated immigrants with criminals. Think about that the next time you get pissed off because you can't take a photo of your child at his/her school sports day you potential paedo you.

 

[Sideroxylon]

To unsubscribe from a thread head up to near the top of the page and use the drop-down "thread tools" menu.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Morally and legally we must not hold people indefinitely.

And we wouldn't have to if he had never arrived via people smugglers.

That and we many not be able to legally do so because of the various treaties that we've signed.

Exactly. So why not stop him before he arrives?

Quite frankly I don't have a clue about what we would do with him after he has served his sentence.

Thanks for the honesty.

Then again considering how those convicted of sex crimes have a lower recidivism rate compared to other criminals I guess you could release him into the community, whether a community would accept him is another matter.

Is that right? That sex crime criminals have lower recidivism? Does that include paedophiles too? Not that I don't believe you but have you some evidence?

What do you propose? Lock him in a detention centre for the rest of his life?

No, like you I have no idea. What I do know is that the community would be safer if he had never arrived.

That's assuming that he's guilty of course, which is seems rather clear that you think he is.

The whole basis of the discussion is based on that assumption and I made that clear from the outset. I believe in his innocence or guilt neither one way or the other.

And yet you see no problem in letting the plane arrivals into the community while their claims are being processed despite the fact that they too could be "potential criminals".

What is it with you and the plane arrivals strawman of yours?
People on planes generally have documentation, their records have been checked, and they don't die at sea.
And I have never said they should let plane arrivals do one thing or another.

In this case it seems that it depends on what we're trying to prevent. It sounds like you want to prevent these people from ever getting to Australia.

Have I somehow been unclear? People die on boats and others lose their places in the proverbial queue due to limited numbers being used up.
Here we have a potential criminal taking someone else place.

It's not that hard to understand, surely?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The law is the law, but above that there's humanity. If you believe that holding people in camps for decades is okay because it stops paedophiles emigrating to Australia, then you've just conflated immigrants with criminals.

Not at all.
Holding people in camps for years is inhumane. There are people in Africa who wait 10-15 years to get a 'pass to come to (say) Australia. These people lose their opportunity when others jump on boats because they have money and geography on their side.

Which is the more humane? Letting those in Africa wait and wait (and die), or allow others to come ahead of them via the people smugglers?

My point about this alleged paedophile is that he has now taken the place of a far more genuine individual. His race, skin colour, religion or anything else matters not to me.

 

[Sideroxylon]

And we wouldn't have to if he had never arrived via people smugglers.

And they will always exist while there is a demand for the services they offer. I don't understand the point you are making in the context of our exchange so far.

 

[amb]

Is that usually a life sentence? A lets not forget that most of the rest are simply illegal rivals or people who have attempted to do so.

You do know that child molesters/paedophiles are rarely cured don't you? We have enough of these monsters here already without importing any more.

 

[Sideroxylon]

You do know that child molesters/paedophiles are rarely cured don't you? We have enough of these monsters here already without importing any more.

Hmmm you have a point. We had better implement a zero-birth policy, too. We have enough of these monsters here already without more being born.

 

[Akhenaten]

Hmmm you have a point. We had better implement a zero-birth policy, too. We have enough of these monsters here already without more being born.

Well we're obviously going to have to do that anyway, since there's no room for any more people.

With that in mind I think we should also be looking for ways to stop the people we already have from getting any bigger.

 

[Wildy]

I agree. He was quite safe where he was - somewhere between Iran and Australia. He could apply for asylum virtually anywhere and wait his turn like other around the world.

You mean like Pakistan, a country that hasn't signed the refugee convention and at present would prefer the large number of refugees that they already have to now leave because it's getting too expensive to look after all these people. It doesn't help that there's quite a bit of corruption going on between the police and the refugees.

Well he could go to Afghanistan, they've signed the treaty but considering that large numbers of Afghans are leaving because of all the violence I don't know if that's the best thing to do.

He could try India, another non-signatory, and maybe he won't face the problems that exist among the camps in India.

Or how about Bangladesh, yet another non-signatory, despite the potential human rights abuses.

Why you wouldn't want to apply for asylum in Myanmar is pretty obvious.

What about Thailand, another non-signatory. It's not like he's a Rohingya is it?

From the last discussion we already know why Malaysia would be out in your mind, non-signatories to both the refugee convention and the torture convention. Alfie, if you believe that we should be sending asylum seekers to Malaysia in a people swap deal thing I can see why this Iranian man wouldn't want to apply for asylum there.

Singapore? They're non-signatories to the same treaties as Malaysia is. I wonder if that changes things in any way?

Indonesia would be the next country, yet another non-signatory to the refugee convention, but at least they've signed the torture convention. I'm sure this man would be safe there, as long as he doesn't happen to end up in an Australian funded detention centre, I'm sure he'll be safe there.