I can't find that reference either (I'm starting to think this is a ruse). Could you please show me where exactly this information is; I am happy to look at it but sheesh, throw me a bone.
It's in this part of the quote tag like this sentence is. said:
Or you could open up the final report that I've linked to a couple of times now and do a search for "temporary protection visa".
They're not my words, I said "if anything they would help stop people getting on boats". And so far you haven't actually shown me evidence to the contrary.
Because you've refused to look. Or at least read the post where I outlined the evidence.
Pehaps you could show me where you furnished me with the page reference etc. Or better yet, supply me with the actual comments outlining the findings.
I will happily be shown wrong on this TPV thing of yours, but I would like to see the evidence.
You know the underlined words in
this post? Those are called links. They take you to web pages that pretty much say the same things that I have said.
Sure. Why wouldn't it work? Which bits - with certainty - can't be reimplemented?
Well you won't be able to send the boats back to Indonesia because, as that article points out the Indonesians won't be very happy, and that the asylum seekers started to deliberately damage their boats.
I looked, it was too long for me to be bothered going through the entire thing. Show me a page, give me a statement, something.
If you click on the words "temporary protection visa" in
this post then it will take you to a page on the parliamentary library about TPVs.
If you click on "Department Infrastructure Manager at Woomera" it will take you to testimony from said person to the Human Rights Commission (the bits most relevant are points 12. and 13.
If you click on "1923 children were in immigration detention" it will take you to a different page from the HRC. What you want is the section called "Children In Detention", specifically table 8.2.
If you click on "1563 children" you will be taken to a website set up about SIEV X which has summarised
this DIMIA fact sheet into a nice table.
If you click on "up to 3721 people" you will be taken to the boat arrivals page from the parliamentary library that you already know about.
The last link is to the Senate Select Committee report that you're bitching about.
And after you've done that you should re-read that post again and you'll see that I mentioned the relevant points in my post and linked back to those so people can see I'm not making **** up, I believe they're called citations.
People with a brain.
Actually, you might just try broadening your reading.
So you've got nothing.
The boats would be turned around where possible and safely, the likelihood is slim. And yes, Malaysia is a lot worse than Nauru for a number of reasons. Are you suggesting Malaysia (who cane refugees as punishment) is a better system than Nauru (where we have control)?
But the boats that are turned around aren't going to Nauru, they're going to Indonesia which is
about as bad. And considering that you were going on about how Malaysia haven't signed the Refugee convention I'm a little amazed that you're so willing to send people back to another country that hasn't signed it either.
Which ones? For someone who's theme of the week (month?) is "evidence" you're doing a pretty bad job at actually providing it.
Like you, they would be wrong.
Then that means you've done a very bad job at getting your point across.
I didn't realise I had. But nor do I ignore the compelling pull factors.
Have I made such a claim somewhere?
Your arguments seem to rely on the premise that pull factors > push factors. Which is strange when you consider that refugees and asylum seekers typically don't make their decision to leave on pull factors.
