And the boats keep coming

[Hallo Alfie]

Julia Gillard has managed to provide the people smugglers with a very lucrative market indeed. We have seen 400 to 500 people die at sea (by government estimates) so far. Sadly, I predict, there will be more.

Gillard and Labor have essentially changed their minds, and changed their minds again. They cancelled the Pacific Solution (Nauru) claiming incorrectly it didn't work and that push factors sent asylum seekers across the waters. As soon as Nauru and offshore processing was dismantled, the boats started coming. "Coincidence" and/or "push factors are up" they claimed. Nothing to do with pull factors.

50 people die on the rocks at Christmas Island nearly 12 months ago.

We need to go offshore says the government and along the way goes about embarrassing Australia, our neighbours and themselves by providing one thought bubble after another (East Timor, Malaysia). A clear concession that the supposed non-existent pull factors are in fact in play.

The boats stall slightly while the Malaysia solution is challenged in court - a battle the government embarrassingly loses.

The government now has a choice:
- negotiate with the opposition to implement offshore processing on Nauru and elsewhere or
- cave in to the morons greens and effectively open our borders by having no policy.

They chose the latter.

More people have since drowned off Indonesia.

Today we have another boat arrive:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mo...boat-intercepted/story-fn7x8me2-1226218613579

That is seven in a week and some 4000 (people) this year
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/12250054/new-asylum-boat-biggest-of-2011/

We had a record of 920 in November alone.

A RECORD 920 asylum seekers and crew arrived in Australia in November, the most in any month since Labor took office, and 30 per cent more than the Immigration Department's own dire predictions.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/nove...at-arrivals-20111201-1o99b.html#ixzz1fJOTvzPT

While the Pacific Solution was in place there was an average of three boats per year.

Coincidence? Not bloody likely; there are pull factors directly created by this government.

The government position on this is untenable, the flood gates have been opened, people are arriving robbing other worthy refugees of an opportunity, people smugglers have a very lucrative product, many have died and sadly I predict more will too. Our detention centres are full to overflowing and the arrivals are prematurely being placed in the community. In turn these take up valuable community housing places that others need as well. The waiting lists are getting longer and longer.

I support immigration and do a lot of work with our African, Afghan and SriLankan immigrants in particular. I love them and have them in my home regularly.

But I have some problems with where we are now:
- the pull factor sees people die on the rocks and/or drown in transit.
- other worthy people lose their place. It also discriminates against those waiting their turn in the proverbial queues by allowing them to be processed here unhindered and taking limited places.
- the extraordinary loss of control of our borders and those that arrive.
- this government is hopeless and we have the worst pm ever (imo) in power now.
- Why should we reward people simply because they have money and geography? What makes them more deserving than those waiting in (say) Africa who don't have the wherewithall financially and geographically?
- The huge costs associated with detention, legal process, welfare etc etc. It costs money and the welfare butter only spreads so far.
- What do we do with prospective non genuine refugees while they await processing. Do we really want criminals released into the community?


Some of my thoughts here.

Discuss.

 

[bit_pattern]

I'll let this graph do the discussing for me

 

[Wildy]

Gillard and Labor have essentially changed their minds, and changed their minds again. They cancelled the Pacific Solution (Nauru) claiming incorrectly it didn't work and that push factors sent asylum seekers across the waters.

And what evidence do you have that push factors aren't indeed doing so?

As soon as Nauru and offshore processing was dismantled, the boats started coming. "Coincidence" and/or "push factors are up" they claimed. Nothing to do with pull factors.

We need to go offshore says the government and along the way goes about embarrassing Australia, our neighbours and themselves by providing one thought bubble after another (East Timor, Malaysia).

Why do we need to go offshore?

The government now has a choice:
- negotiate with the opposition to implement offshore processing on Nauru and elsewhere or
- cave in to the morons greens and effectively open our borders by having no policy.

They chose the latter.

Evidence that they have no policy?

Coincidence? Not bloody likely; there are pull factors directly created by this government.

We discussed this before

...people are arriving robbing other worthy refugees of an opportunity...

And in the previous times that this has been discussed it's been shown to you why this statement is wrong and yet you still continue in saying it. Why?

Our detention centres are full to overflowing and the arrivals are prematurely being placed in the community.

And yet the policy of releasing asylum seekers into the community already happens to those who

I support immigration and do a lot of work with our African, Afghan and SriLankan immigrants in particular. I love them and have them in my home regularly.

So you work with immigrants and not refugees as you have stated in previous threads?

- the pull factor sees people die on the rocks and/or drown in transit.

What is "the pull factor"?

- other worthy people lose their place. It also discriminates against those waiting their turn in the proverbial queues by allowing them to be processed here unhindered and taking limited places.

No it doesn't and you've refused to accept any evidence that shows that you are wrong here.

- the extraordinary loss of control of our borders and those that arrive.

Because we have to process people who claim for asylum?

- Why should we reward people simply because they have money and geography? What makes them more deserving than those waiting in (say) Africa who don't have the wherewithall financially and geographically?

Because, as stated in previous threads, the people waiting in Africa have the privilege of applying for resettlement. The people who arrive and claim asylum have the right to do so. It's a difference that you've refused to accept because it goes against your narrative of "the boat people are taking all teh refugee spots".

- The huge costs associated with detention, legal process, welfare etc etc. It costs money and the welfare butter only spreads so far.

Because it's only the boat people who use the appeals process isn't it?

- What do we do with prospective non genuine refugees while they await processing. Do we really want criminals released into the community?

And here you are once again complaining about a small number of people who arrive by boat but you don't seem to care about the far larger number of plane arrivals who are let into the community who would be considered "non-genuine". We already let about 3000 people per year who arrive by plane into the community who will ultimately fail their asylum claim but that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

 

[MG1962]

Some of my thoughts here.

Discuss.

And what do you expect to be any different?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And what evidence do you have that push factors aren't indeed doing so?

I did not say there were no push factors. I am saying that the claims there were no pull factors is false.

Why do we need to go offshore?

That was Gillard's call, ask her.

Evidence that they have no policy?

One cannot produce non existent evidence. Perhaps you could outline precisely what the policy is and prove me wrong.

And in the previous times that this has been discussed it's been shown to you why this statement is wrong and yet you still continue in saying it. Why?

You have outlined why you think it's wrong. I have not been swayed.

And yet the policy of releasing asylum seekers into the community already happens to those who

What?

So you work with immigrants and not refugees as you have stated in previous threads?

Both. Problem?

What is "the pull factor"?

Hit Christmas Island and you are 'home'.

No it doesn't and you've refused to accept any evidence that shows that you are wrong here.

The proverbial queue. If our intake quotas are filled by those on boats, others don't get to come. It's not that hard, I honestly don't know how you don't get that.

And here you are once again complaining about a small number of people who arrive by boat but you don't seem to care about the far larger number of plane arrivals who are let into the community who would be considered "non-genuine".

Firstly those that arrive by plane have papers.
Secondly they don't die on the rocks or in the oceans.

How is it you don't understand this most important part of my problem with this? Do I need to shout out that 'people die'?

Moreover, why don't you discuss this aspect of my argument?

We already let about 3000 people per year who arrive by plane into the community who will ultimately fail their asylum claim but that doesn't seem to bother you at all.

Correct, it doesn't bother me because they have arrived here safely. There is nothing much more we can do to stop them, they are not helping make people smugglers rich, and they do not place themselves or their children in jeopardy.

And what do you expect to be any different?

I expect to have a conversation that can continue.

 

[Wildy]

I did not say there were no push factors. I am saying that the claims there were no pull factors is false.

Strawman.

That was Gillard's call, ask her.

I'm asking you that question, not Gillard.

One cannot produce non existent evidence. Perhaps you could outline precisely what the policy is and prove me wrong.

So you're arguing from ignorance here then. Perhaps you should research ALP policy instead of making ignorant claims and then getting others to do you research for you.

You have outlined why you think it's wrong. I have not been swayed.

For those who are interested my "outline" is here.

And the reason you were not swayed was because you decided to just try and ignore what was said.

What?

Hmmm... I thought I finished that sentence. It's supposed to end "who arrive by plane."

Both. Problem?

Just clearing up a potential misconception. Although I do hope that all the Afghans are proper immigrants and not refugees though.

Hit Christmas Island and you are 'home'.

And what exactly makes it a pull factor? I've noticed that you seem to be very jumpy when it comes to actually explaining what makes things a pull factor or not.

The proverbial queue.

Which even the government says is wrong. When you look at how the government actually handles resettlement you can see that a queue isn't even the best description from a proverbial standpoint.

If our intake quotas are filled by those on boats, others don't get to come. It's not that hard, I honestly don't know how you don't get that.

And I don't understand how you don't know how either the asylum process or the resettlement process actually works.

Firstly those that arrive by plane have papers.

Some of which are fake. But at least those people didn't give money to the people smugglers.

Secondly they don't die on the rocks or in the oceans.

How is it you don't understand this most important part of my problem with this? Do I need to shout out that 'people die'?[/QUOTE]

Really, so then what's with all the complaints that they're taking places for "proper refugees" (or whatever term it is you use to describe them) and all the other things.

Besides it's probably far easier to just remove section 42 of Part 2 Division 3 Subdivision A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) which prevents people from getting on planes without a visa and why we have airport liaison officers in various international airports who pre-screen passengers to make sure that they have valid papers.

Moreover, why don't you discuss this aspect of my argument?

Primarily because when you trot out the deaths of asylum seekers you're doing it as an appeal to emotion or an attack on the government rather than presenting any actual argument.

Correct, it doesn't bother me because they have arrived here safely. There is nothing much more we can do to stop them, they are not helping make people smugglers rich, and they do not place themselves or their children in jeopardy.

So when you say "Do we really want criminals released into the community?" you don't actually mean it. You just don't want people who arrive by boat to be released into the community simply because you don't like their mode of arrival. Instead of trying to frame it around "releasing criminals into the community" why don't you just be honest and say "I don't like letting boat people into the community during the screening process because I don't like their mode of arrival"?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Strawman.

How so?

I'm asking you that question, not Gillard.

And I'm paraphrasing Gillard. Why do you disagree with her?

So you're arguing from ignorance here then. Perhaps you should research ALP policy instead of making ignorant claims and then getting others to do you research for you.

The last I heard they wanted offshore processing.
Wasn't it Conroy this week who was to increase our quota by 6000 in a bid to get the Labor left on board with this? A quota is a bit like a proverbial queue isn't it?

Just clearing up a potential misconception. Although I do hope that all the Afghans are proper immigrants and not refugees though.

Why would that matter to you?

Really, so then what's with all the complaints that they're taking places for "proper refugees" (or whatever term it is you use to describe them) and all the other things.

Supporting arguments. My main issues in all this are 1/. people dying and 2/. the queue jumping and unfairness to others equally (or more) desperate and/or deserving.
There are other supporting points, but these are my main two. I think if we can get past these the rest I can actually come to terms with.

So, please address #1 first. Do you think that if it was within our power to reduce the numbers of boats we should do that? Surely saving lives should be our first priority.

Primarily because when you trot out the deaths of asylum seekers you're doing it as an appeal to emotion or an attack on the government rather than presenting any actual argument.

Actual deaths are not an appeal to emotion, they are a factual consideration. Frankly I find it disturbing you can even attempt to wave this issue away as a non item.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Your graph means nothing without context;

What context would you like included? You regularly assert a causal relationship between Howard Government policies and the rate of illegal immigration in Australia. That graph provides far more "context" than you have ever demonstrated on this topic.

 

[Wildy]

And I'm paraphrasing Gillard. Why do you disagree with her?

Because it's a stupid policy when you consider that you're sending these people to some other country even though nearly all of them will end up coming here anyway.

The last I heard they wanted offshore processing.

So you were lying when you said that the ALP had no policy.

Wasn't it Conroy this week who was to increase our quota by 6000 in a bid to get the Labor left on board with this? A quota is a bit like a proverbial queue isn't it?

Erm. No? Especially since even saying that it's a "proverbial queue" fails to take into account the fact that even the resettlement process would have "queue jumpers".

Why would that matter to you?

Well it would confuse me as to how you could hold some of these people who you believe are taking spots from "more deserving" people as friends.

To me it's like Pauline Hanson telling everyone that her best friend is Asian. It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever at best and blatant hypocrisy at worst.

That and you've mentioned your "refugee friends" a few times when you think that people are saying that you're racist.

So, please address #1 first. Do you think that if it was within our power to reduce the numbers of boats we should do that? Surely saving lives should be our first priority.

As I've said before, yes. And again as I've said before I don't think that returning to the Pacific Solution is the answer.

Actual deaths are not an appeal to emotion, they are a factual consideration. Frankly I find it disturbing you can even attempt to wave this issue away as a non item.

And yet you're the one who typically trots these deaths out like some kind of show pony when you think that it would suit you.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Because it's a stupid policy when you consider that you're sending these people to some other country even though nearly all of them will end up coming here anyway.

Then let them come here... alive.

So you were lying when you said that the ALP had no policy.

He he. I see what you did, very clever.
Perhaps what I should have said is they do not have their policy in place at the moment and our borders are effectively open.

Erm. No? Especially since even saying that it's a "proverbial queue" fails to take into account the fact that even the resettlement process would have "queue jumpers".

Really? Have you some evidence on this?
You may be right but surely we could address that too. Either way it does not change the fact that there are queue jumpers - which seems rather unfair to those equally or more deserving that wait patiently and legally.

As I've said before, yes. And again as I've said before I don't think that returning to the Pacific Solution is the answer.

Why not?

If we consider human life paramount in this discussion, then a PS type process seems to be exactly what we need to do.

And yet you're the one who typically trots these deaths out like some kind of show pony when you think that it would suit you.

And you and others would conveniently ignore and/or deny them. If it makes you uncomfortable then I am actually pleased; it should make people uncomfortable, and the facts should not be forgotten.

The current situation costs lives, some 400-500 on government estimates so far and tragically there will almost certainly be more to come.

Why does this outrage seem acceptable to so many of the left?

Why would you want a policy that helps to kill people?

 

[Wildy]

Then let them come here... alive.

What the hell does this have to do with what I said at all?

He he. I see what you did, very clever.

Actually I didn't do anything. I just let you hang yourself with your own words.

Perhaps what I should have said is they do not have their policy in place at the moment and our borders are effectively open.

How are the borders effectively open?

Really? Have you some evidence on this?

Offshore resettlement component offers resettlement in Australia for people overseas who are in the greatest need for humanitarian assistance.

That would mean that either there are a bunch of people who would be jumping the proverbial queue since queues are first come first serve or you have no idea what a queue is.

You may be right but surely we could address that too. Either way it does not change the fact that there are queue jumpers - which seems rather unfair to those equally or more deserving that wait patiently and legally.

Why are the Afghan asylum seekers who arrive here by boat less deserving than say Africans in a refugee camp?

Are you saying that we should refuse the asylum claims, contravening a few treaties that we are signatories to simply because these people arrived by boat?

Why not?

Well apart from the stupidity of part of the process which I've already mentioned, court decisions and the opinions of some of our neighbours have made certain aspects of the solution untenable.

If we consider human life paramount in this discussion, then a PS type process seems to be exactly what we need to do.

Why can't we just remove the section of the Migration Act that makes it illegal to get on a plane without a visa?

And you and others would conveniently ignore and/or deny them.

You mean like how you tried to deny that TPV's, which were part of the Pacific Solution, caused any deaths?

If it makes you uncomfortable then I am actually pleased; it should make people uncomfortable, and the facts should not be forgotten.

I will admit that when you bring up these deaths I do feel a bit uncomfortable. But that discomfort stems not from the fact that these people are getting on leaky boats and sometimes die trying to get to this country, but that I'm discussing this issue with someone who is callous enough to use these deaths either, as you do below, as an appeal to emotion, or to as a chance to gloat at how bad you believe the government to be.

Maybe in real life you are like the prole who is complaining that the war films being shown are wrong but on this forum you come across as the party member who watches with glee as the boats filled with refugees are being bombed.

The current situation costs lives, some 400-500 on government estimates so far and tragically there will almost certainly be more to come.

Why does this outrage seem acceptable to so many of the left?

Why would you want a policy that helps to kill people?

You say this again and again. Perhaps you could provide some actual evidence that onshore processing is a pull factor because the only "evidence" that you've provided so far is your own word.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

What the hell does this have to do with what I said at all?

You seemed to be suggesting I didn't want them here at all. Not true.

How are the borders effectively open?

How are they not? All you have to do is land at Christmas Island and you are in.

Offshore resettlement component offers resettlement in Australia for people overseas who are in the greatest need for humanitarian assistance.

That would mean that either there are a bunch of people who would be jumping the proverbial queue since queues are first come first serve or you have no idea what a queue is.

I admit you have lost me here a bit; am I to understand that you think those that are in the "greatest need" are the queue jumpers? Surely these are the ones that we should be giving priority and not those who come by boat - clearly with the means/money to survive.

If not I don't understand what you are trying to show me.

Why are the Afghan asylum seekers who arrive here by boat less deserving than say Africans in a refugee camp?

I reckon I have explained that already, but you first - given this was originally a question I asked of you: Why is someone arriving by boat who has money and geography more deserving than those who wait?

Are you saying that we should refuse the asylum claims, contravening a few treaties that we are signatories to simply because these people arrived by boat?

(scratching head) I don't think I said that, I could be wrong, perhaps you could show me.

Well apart from the stupidity of part of the process which I've already mentioned, court decisions and the opinions of some of our neighbours have made certain aspects of the solution untenable.

Nope, nope, nope and nope.

Why can't we just remove the section of the Migration Act that makes it illegal to get on a plane without a visa?

Which would achieve what?

I will admit that when you bring up these deaths I do feel a bit uncomfortable. But that discomfort stems not from the fact that these people are getting on leaky boats and sometimes die trying to get to this country, but that I'm discussing this issue with someone who is callous enough to use these deaths either, as you do below, as an appeal to emotion, or to as a chance to gloat at how bad you believe the government to be.

Then you completely (and I think quite deliberately) mistake my motives altogether. The government is appalling in my opinion, their policy and political point scoring have cost lives and recklessly so - but these are side issues. You would want to ignore the deaths - sweeping them to the darkness of history - and you have the temerity to call me callous. Unbelievable.

My take is that human lives are the paramount consideration, all else is secondary. I could only guess why you refuse to discuss or address this in any depth?

 

[Wildy]

You seemed to be suggesting I didn't want them here at all. Not true.

Actually I don't really know what you want. As far as I can tell you prefer to let those who arrive by plane and through resettlement but your opinion on boat arrivals is that they should go somewhere that isn't Australia.

How are they not? All you have to do is land at Christmas Island and you are in.

You do know that essentially the way to apply for asylum is to show up at the borders and claim asylum? But considering that upwards of 90% of the boat arrivals means that while everything after the question mark is almost technically correct it doesn't mean that the borders are open.

I admit you have lost me here a bit; am I to understand that you think those that are in the "greatest need" are the queue jumpers?

Well considering how queues work those people would be queue jumpers as well as those who seek asylum. But then it's your analogy so I guess you have an argument as to why I'm wrong.

Surely these are the ones that we should be giving priority and not those who come by boat - clearly with the means/money to survive.

Myth 8. Unless you're saying that all of Afghanistan's rich and famous are the ones who are getting on the boats.

I reckon I have explained that already, but you first - given this was originally a question I asked of you: Why is someone arriving by boat who has money and geography more deserving than those who wait?

Except that I've already answered you question. It all boils down to international treaties giving us obligations towards asylum seekers that but don't extend to resettlement applicants. I remember explaining it in rather good detail to you but instead of actually coming up with counter arguments you decided to just complain. Perhaps you could explain to me, preferably with some kind of evidence, why someone in a camp should be more deserving of a place.

(scratching head) I don't think I said that, I could be wrong, perhaps you could show me.

This symbol, ?, at the end of the question you're responding to is something called a "question mark". It's used to denote questions as opposed to this symbol, ., which is called a "full stop" which denotes a statement.

Nope, nope, nope and nope.

Prove it, prove it, prove it and prove it. See I can argue just like you.

Which would achieve what?

It would mean that people could get on a plane, without having to rely on forged documents which some already are doing, get here safely and apply for asylum?

Then you completely (and I think quite deliberately) mistake my motives altogether.

If I'm mistaking your motives then that has more to do with how you present yourself than me doing so deliberately.

You would want to ignore the deaths - sweeping them to the darkness of history - and you have the temerity to call me callous. Unbelievable.

I don't remember saying that I want to ignore the deaths. Perhaps you could point that out to me.

My take is that human lives are the paramount consideration, all else is secondary. I could only guess why you refuse to discuss or address this in any depth?

That human lives are important? I believe I already answered that question with a yes but said that the pacific solution was not the answer (it's post 15 in this thread). I will ask you however the following: is it only their lives that you care about or do you care about their well-being too?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Well considering how queues work those people would be queue jumpers as well as those who seek asylum. But then it's your analogy so I guess you have an argument as to why I'm wrong.

Which I gave you when I said: "Surely these (in the greatest need) are the ones that we should be giving priority and not those who come by boat - clearly with the means/money to survive."

Myth 8. Unless you're saying that all of Afghanistan's rich and famous are the ones who are getting on the boats.

Rich and famous. Funny.
Here are a few more facts to balance the over generalised, very parochial and propagandising myth 8:

- They certainly have more cash than others or they would not be able to afford to pay the smugglers.
- No one ever said they were rich.
- They have already escaped the persecution of the country they are running from once they set sail.

I do not wholly disagree with the myth 8s claims, as there are generalisations on both sides and examples can be found to support both views.

Except that I've already answered you question.

Actually you didn't; you provided excuses around existing treaties etc.

You did not explain to me why you think someone arriving by boat who has money and geography more deserving than those who wait?

So. You first.

It would mean that people could get on a plane, without having to rely on forged documents which some already are doing, get here safely and apply for asylum?

So anyone could come at any time they liked? Stay as long as they liked? It wouldn't matter who or what they are? What sort of people they are?

Is that the idea?

If I'm mistaking your motives then that has more to do with how you present yourself than me doing so deliberately.

I doubt it.

I don't remember saying that I want to ignore the deaths. Perhaps you could point that out to me.

Well you certainly don't want to address the issue. That suggests you want to ignore or deny them.

A simple question if we consider human life paramount:

If the current laws encourage people to get on a boat and people die, does it make sense then to have policies that would stop this?

That human lives are important? I believe I already answered that question with a yes but said that the pacific solution was not the answer (it's post 15 in this thread).

So what alternatives will help achieve this?

I will ask you however the following: is it only their lives that you care about or do you care about their well-being too?

Both, but:
Firstly, it is impossible to care about their well being if they are dead.
Secondly, why is their well being more important than that of others?

 

[Wildy]

Which I gave you when I said: "Surely these (in the greatest need) are the ones that we should be giving priority and not those who come by boat - clearly with the means/money to survive."

So in other words your argument is basically (to continue using your analogy) "queue jumping is ok in certain situations, i.e. in greatest need or coming here by plane, but not in other situations, i.e. coming here by boat".

Here are a few more facts to balance the over generalised, very parochial and propagandising myth 8

What makes it parochial, what makes it propagandising?

I'm sure you can provide sources for these "facts" that you have provided.

- They certainly have more cash than others or they would not be able to afford to pay the smugglers.

And you're saying that the page I linked to doesn't say that at all?

- No one ever said they were rich.

Then you have read that page very selectively for you to come up with this as a "counterpoint".

- They have already escaped the persecution of the country they are running from once they set sail.

You mean Indonesia? A country that isn't a signatory to the Refugee Convention? And how do you know that they haven't escaped being persecuted?

I do not wholly disagree with the myth 8s claims, as there are generalisations on both sides and examples can be found to support both views.

Then I'm sure you can find sources that support your claims then don't you?

Actually you didn't; you provided excuses around existing treaties etc.

You did not explain to me why you think someone arriving by boat who has money and geography more deserving than those who wait?

So. You first.

Translation: Stop making your opinions based on the arguments of people who know more about this issue than you do.

But then I guess my way of coming up with an opinion is new to you since yours seems to be to listen to pundits who know less about refugees than you do and apply what they say to the hypocritically xenophobic world view that you seem to hold.

So anyone could come at any time they liked? Stay as long as they liked? It wouldn't matter who or what they are? What sort of people they are?

Is that the idea?

No. I don't even understand how you could read what I said and conclude that I want to completely open the borders.

Well you certainly don't want to address the issue. That suggests you want to ignore or deny them.

A simple question if we consider human life paramount:

If the current laws encourage people to get on a boat and people die, does it make sense then to have policies that would stop this?

Well you'd first have to show that the current laws are causing people to get on the boats. You're certainly able to present speculations that this is true but you've been consistently devoid of actual evidence when challenged on it.

So what alternatives will help achieve this?

Well I already mentioned one but you've already jumped to strange conclusions about it.

Both...

So why do you support a policy that involves locking people up in detention centres for long periods of time? Something that groups like the AMA oppose?

Secondly, why is their well being more important than that of others?

I don't believe I ever said it was. Perhaps you can show me where I said that?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

So in other words your argument is basically (to continue using your analogy) "queue jumping is ok in certain situations, i.e. in greatest need or coming here by plane, but not in other situations, i.e. coming here by boat".

Those coming by boat with money and means are jumping the queue and displacing those in greater need. Surely 'greatest need' people are the ones we should be giving priority, those on the boats would not generally meet that definition.

I don't quite see it as fair.

Understand now?

Translation: Stop making your opinions based on the arguments of people who know more about this issue than you do.

Nope. My take is that you can't make a decision on this of your own and are hiding behind current laws. Laws can change if there is a desire and need to do so.

I will ask the question again:

Why do you think someone arriving by boat who has money and geography more deserving than those who wait?

My take is they are queue jumping and that offends my sense of fair play.

No. I don't even understand how you could read what I said and conclude that I want to completely open the borders.

What are you suggesting then? How do you see your proposal playing out?

Well you'd first have to show that the current laws are causing people to get on the boats.

Dodge noted. Let's make it a hypothetical question then:

If current laws encourage people to get on boats and people die, does it make sense then to have policies that would stop this?

So why do you support a policy that involves locking people up in detention centres for long periods of time? Something that groups like the AMA oppose?

I am not in favor of locking people up for long periods of time. If however the time frames become protracted because of a lack of papers or dubious stories then too bad. If it is because of a lack of resources then we should be working to improve them. The upside is people are alive if they have been deterred from putting their children on a boat.

Two things here:
- Could you please point out which part of this document you are directly referring to and
- What do you think is the average stay in detention (under the PS)? And how does that compare to 10-15 years in a refugee camp do you think?

I don't believe I ever said it was. Perhaps you can show me where I said that?

You are saying that those that come by boat should be given priority simply by virtue of their arrival. i.e. they are here now. That means you are placing their well being above those that can't just jump on a boat and remain stuck in camps elsewhere.

 

[Wildy]

Those coming by boat with money and means are jumping the queue and displacing those in greater need. Surely 'greatest need' people are the ones we should be giving priority, those on the boats would not generally meet that definition.

How do you define "greatest need"? And why is it that these arguments only seem to apply to people who arrive by boat and not those who arrive by plane?

I don't quite see it as fair.

It's not. But that's how the system works.

Nope. My take is that you can't make a decision on this of your own and are hiding behind current laws.

Which is just more complaining from you about how I don't make decisions the same way you do.

I will ask the question again:

Why do you think someone arriving by boat who has money and geography more deserving than those who wait?

Just because you don't like the answer that was given does not mean that the question has not been answered. Then again I should probably take a leaf out of your book and just not bother answering questions or proving claims that I don't want to.

My take is they are queue jumping and that offends my sense of fair play.

Why do you support one form of queue jumping, the selection of those most in need, but disapprove of another form that is just as legal?

What are you suggesting then? How do you see your proposal playing out?

Removing the section I mentioned means that people can get on a plane (it also does apply to ships as well) heading to Australia and can therefore get there safely, and they can make their application for asylum at customs instead of getting on a leaky boat. They get to the country safely, they arrive in a manner more acceptable to you and the people smugglers lose their market. Have I removed the requirement for people to have a visa to get into the country? No. Have I essentially opened the borders? No. All I have done is put Australia in line with other countries.

Dodge noted.

What dodge. You made a factual statement that, as far as I can tell, has no basis in reality.

If current laws encourage people to get on boats and people die, does it make sense then to have policies that would stop this?

If you could show the current laws do encourage people to get on the boats then yes.

I am not in favor of locking people up for long periods of time. If however the time frames become protracted because of a lack of papers or dubious stories then too bad. If it is because of a lack of resources then we should be working to improve them. The upside is people are alive if they have been deterred from putting their children on a boat.

So essentially despite not being in favour of locking these people up you prefer it because as well as being used as a deterrent it's also to punish these people?

Two things here:
- Could you please point out which part of this document you are directly referring to

I take it that you're incapable of reading a document, or at least the section headings.

- What do you think is the average stay in detention (under the PS)? And how does that compare to 10-15 years in a refugee camp do you think?

Since I don't know what the average stay in detention was under the PS (which I'm sure you can tell me) I can't really compare it to a refugee camp.

You are saying that those that come by boat should be given priority simply by virtue of their arrival. i.e. they are here now.

That is how the system works, and it's like that pretty much everywhere. It also applies to the people who arrive by plane, but of course you don't care about them because they didn't arrive by boat. The fact that you'd gladly abandon our obligations to a certain group of people simply because you don't like their mode of arrival scares me.

 

[Skepticemea]

I am currently applying for a spousal visa to emigrate to Australia. Anyone thinking that Australian borders are "open" needs to take a peak at the 2 kgs of documentation and affadavits my wife (an Australian citizen) and I have had to gather.

Open borders? You must be joking!

 

[amb]

I am currently applying for a spousal visa to emigrate to Australia. Anyone thinking that Australian borders are "open" needs to take a peak at the 2 kgs of documentation and affadavits my wife (an Australian citizen) and I have had to gather.

Open borders? You must be joking!

You must first find a people smuggler. Pay the gentleman around $ 5-7 k, hop on a rickety boat, and viola you're in. Coming from England? No way man. You must go through the proper channels and the immigration department.

 

[Wildy]

You must first find a people smuggler. Pay the gentleman around $ 5-7 k, hop on a rickety boat, and viola you're in. Coming from England? No way man. You must go through the proper channels and the immigration department.

No he's not. Unless things are far worse in the UK than they've been letting on what he would be is out about $5-7k since he's going to have his asylum application rejected and if he decides to appeal it'll most likely be rejected and he'd be out another grand and send back to the UK with a piece of paper saying that he's got an exclusion period of x many years.

Just because the asylum seekers don't meet your visual standards of refugees doesn't mean that they're not.