And the boats keep coming

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...
Sideroxylon said:
How would going back to Nauru stop the boats?
Click to expand...

Alfie, would you like to answer this question?
 
A.A. Alfie said:
We have done it to death, why go over it again? The Pacific solution stopped the boats through a raft of policies. If it worked once it can work again.
Click to expand...

Expert opinion says it won't work again, but I can guarantee you have been told that already, so I don't know why I am telling you again. The way it 'worked' was to just make those on Nauru feel even worse then they did in their country of origon, so that many were self harming, there were suicides, and mental illness.
 
Last edited:
a_unique_person said:
Expert opinion says it won't work again, but I can guarantee you have been told that already, so I don't know why I am telling you again. The way it 'worked' was to just make those on Nauru feel even worse then they did in their country of origon, so that many were self harming, there were suicides, and mental illness.
Click to expand...

But those so called "experts" are obviously wrong because Alfie says that they're wrong because he apparently knows better than these people.
 
Which experts? Labor paid experts? Are these the same experts that said Malaysia was legal, that East Timor was on board etc? :)

But more seriously, why won't Nauru work? What has changed that can't be changed overcome to allow it to work again?
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Which experts? Labor paid experts? Are these the same experts that said Malaysia was legal, that East Timor was on board etc? :)

But more seriously, why won't Nauru work? What has changed that can't be changed overcome to allow it to work again?
Click to expand...

Why don't you explain how Nauru will work, since it's your claim that it will work? Perhaps you could even try writing more than one line for your answer.
 
Last edited:
Wildy said:
Why don't you explain how Nauru will work, since it's your claim that it will work? Perhaps you could even try writing more than one line for your answer.
Click to expand...

Why do I need to explain it at all? The policy was in place before and it achieved what it set out to achieve. What I don't understand is why you and others won't you explain why it won't work? Unless there is something that has changed, there is no reason (that I am aware of) that means it will not work again. Has something changed? If so, please let me know so I can reassess my position.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Why do I need to explain it at all?
Click to expand...

Because it's your claim and it's up to you to support it. Or does the whole "burden of proof" thing not apply to you.

Has something changed?
Click to expand...

Yes.

If so, please let me know so I can reassess my position.
Click to expand...

Considering your behaviour in this thread, and the last two threads where we've discussed boat people and the Pacific Solution I really doubt that you are honestly going to reassess your position. You're more likely to handwave what is presented to you as either "irrelevant" or you'll make a claim and then refuse to support it.
 
Wildy said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

What is it?

Wildy said:
Considering your behaviour in this thread, and the last two threads where we've discussed boat people and the Pacific Solution I really doubt that you are honestly going to reassess your position. You're more likely to handwave what is presented to you as either "irrelevant" or you'll make a claim and then refuse to support it.
Click to expand...

So nothing.

Nuff said.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/how-the-left-got-it-wrong-20111221-1p5jd.html

How the left got it wrong

A fantastic article by Robert Manne (who I rarely agree with) on the current situation. While he has a crack at both sides he is now honest enough too to see where the left has failed badly in all this.

Once excerpt - but I recommend the entire article on which I agree with everything but a few minor points:

For its part, the left has been unwilling to concede that the Pacific Solution succeeded in deterring the boats. Between 1999 and late 2001, 12,176 asylum seekers arrived by boat. In the years of the Pacific Solution - 2002 to 2008 - 449 arrived. Since its abandonment, 14,008 asylum seekers have reached Australian shores.

The left's unwillingness to acknowledge the obvious has been of great political significance. Following Kevin Rudd's election in 2007 a wise asylum seeker policy would have involved leaving the Pacific Solution intact but humanising policy by increasing the annual quota of refugees and ending mandatory detention. The internment camps on Nauru were virtually empty. The undeniable cruelty of the policy had reached its natural end.

No one on the left with an interest in asylum seeker policy - and I include myself - was far-sighted or independent or courageous enough to offer the incoming Rudd government such advice.
Click to expand...

I would ask everyone to have a look at this and see if you too can look within as Manne has done.

Sadly, I doubt some of you have that capacity.
Click to expand...

I ask again, what has changed?
 
A few things you fail to consider:
- The High court decision was about Malaysia, not Nauru.
- Even if Nauru is impacted, this can be overcome with cooperate and some legislation.

So what has changed and why can't Nauru be implemented and again be succesful in stopping the boats?
 
A.A. Alfie said:
A few things you fail to consider:
- The High court decision was about Malaysia, not Nauru.
Click to expand...

And? The Solicitor-General said that this decision impacts all offshore processing schemes including Nauru and PNG. Why should I believe that your argument, that it doesn't affect all offshore processing, over that of the Solicitor-General?

- Even if Nauru is impacted, this can be overcome with cooperate and some legislation.
Click to expand...

But so far such legislation has not been passed which means that this point is still valid. The fact that you wish to dismiss this point based on something that may happen in the future is disingenuous.

So what has changed and why can't Nauru be implemented and again be succesful in stopping the boats?
Click to expand...

You really think those two points somehow negate what I said?
 
Wildy said:
And? The Solicitor-General said that this decision impacts all offshore processing schemes including Nauru and PNG. Why should I believe that your argument, that it doesn't affect all offshore processing, over that of the Solicitor-General?
Click to expand...

Firstly show me where the solicitor general says that exactly.

Wildy said:
But so far such legislation has not been passed which means that this point is still valid. The fact that you wish to dismiss this point based on something that may happen in the future is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Secondly:
Hang on mate. You put up a hypothetical about what should be done. I am saying the government and coalition should join forces to legislate to make offshore processing legal in the eyes of the High Court (even if Nauru is impacted).

It is not I who is being disingenuous here but you who is moving the goalposts.

Wildy said:
You really think those two points somehow negate what I said?
Click to expand...

Yep. And unless you can show me a reason why Nauru could not work again your statements remain negated. :)
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Firstly show me where the solicitor general says that exactly.
Click to expand...

There you go. And since you're probably not going to read the whole thing paragraph 3 pretty much sums up his advice.

Secondly:
Hang on mate. You put up a hypothetical about what should be done.

...

It is not I who is being disingenuous here but you who is moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...

(edited because my response to these two points is pretty much the same)

Oh, so this is an answer to my hypothetical. Then considering who I addressed the question to, it would be perfectly valid to say "STFU" and/or ignore you.

But what's happened is that we've also gone back on a line of the discussion that you basically ran away from.

Yep. And unless you can show me a reason why Nauru could not work again your statements remain negated. :)
Click to expand...

Because legal advice from the Solicitor-General doesn't count at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom