BobK
Premium
- 7,020
- Massachusetts, USA
Offering it is fine. Forcing it, no so fine.... That's not to say we should offer integration into our own society, that's not always the correct course of action.
Offering it is fine. Forcing it, no so fine.... That's not to say we should offer integration into our own society, that's not always the correct course of action.
The irony in all of this is that out government pitches itself as "a friend of small business", but has fundamentally failed to recognise that the people smugglers are running their operations as a business. They try to shut them down by spreading the word that asylum seekers - even genuine refugees - won't be resettled in Australia, but the message clearly isn't getting through. When those Rohingya were picked up off the coast of Aceh, several were interviewed and they said that they wanted to come to Australia, but had no idea about the policy. People smugglers load boats with hundreds of people who pay in advance, and cut them loose on the open sea. They're not guiding vessels in the way they once were. There is nothing about the operation to disrupt because the people smugglers quit the operation before we become aware of it.We've seen that the smugglers are willing to sink their own boats to make sure that the people have to be picked up by Australia, at the risk of drowning to all
Alright, Australia takes the current refugees.
What happens to the next boat?
I have yet to see a logical explaination on how Australia can take in refugees without getting flooded by them because of those actions.
Ever try feed a Seagull?
We having a small population and huge land is not a logical answer, especially when we are already at our infustructure limits already as our population is growing at a higher rate then any other developed country by percentage.
Unless you think them being homeless on our massive land is the solution?
I am yet to see any conclusive evidence that our policy has made any actual impact on the region. I would say that it hasn't, considering that there are thousands of people adrift in the Andaman Sea.I have yet to see a logical explaination on how Australia can take in refugees without getting flooded by them because of those actions.
I might not have all of the answers, but don't buy into LeMansAid's hype. He's quite happy to have his government commit massive human rights violations in his name because one person can't produce a bulletproof policy on demand.
Personally, I'd like to look at how effectively we could actively find people genuinely in need of refuge, and double, triple, or quadruple our intake. In concert with that, if harsh treatment of boat arrivals continued it would at least count towards tipping the scales in favour of would be refugees choosing against the potentially deadly option and striving for the safe option. If the balance was right, and we're taking in enough people the "right" way, I'd hope that it would end up being viewed as a completely stupid idea to blow every family member's life savings, risk dying at sea, and being locked up indefinitely. It's all about getting the proportions of the good vs the bad right. At the moment we seem to have bugger all of the good going on, and perception follows. Perception being a really important thing in stopping people jumping on dodgy boats.
The new immigration policy enforced by Brussel is being shot down by several members. It started with Hungary, Slovakia and Estonia refusing to take in extra fugitives, and now France is being stubborn.
Partially. They say they want to discourage traffickers, but they haven't done it. The traffickers just load people onto vessels, take their money, and cast them off. Even if every country refused to take them, the traffickers would keep going.from what little info I read online, Aussie gov said not to "encourage" the traffickers. Am I right?
Partially. They say they want to discourage traffickers, but they haven't done it. The traffickers just load people onto vessels, take their money, and cast them off. Even if every country refused to take them, the traffickers would keep going.
No idea - they have literally made it illegal for anyone involved in border security to talk about any aspect of border security:...So what are their short- and long-term plans?
No idea - they have literally made it illegal for anyone involved in border security to talk about any aspect of border security:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...on-centre-secrecy-just-got-even-worse/6501086
While there might be an argument for keeping tactics at sea a secret, this applies to detention facilities and anything that happens within them. There have been reports of widespread sexual abuse, denial of medical treatment, and attacks from locals living adjacent to the facilities. And now, we will know nothing about it.
It's frightening because they can do anything they want and nobody will know anything about it. We have already faced serious criticism from the UN commissioner charged with investigating claims of torture; our response was "oh, shut up and give us credit for saving lives"....Dunno what to say but...hmm, maybe Australian gov is taking a lesson on "Good Governance" from North Korea...![]()
It's frightening because they can do anything they want and nobody will know anything about it. We have already faced serious criticism from the UN commissioner charged with investigating claims of torture; our response was "oh, shut up and give us credit for saving lives".
If the government has their way, they'll now be locked up....Wait, doesn't Austalia have a law protecting whistleblowers? What happens if you expose the ugly truths?
This article is the equivalent of Today Tonight "exposing" some supposedly dodgy Islamist something-or-other, but simply showing Muslims praying, to a background of scary music.Oh, good - now we're housing asylum seekers alongside violent offenders, outlaw bikie members and sex offenders as a means of preventing them from entering the country:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2015-...on-detainees-sent-to-christmas-island/6503812
..... the centre's high-security facilities would house criminals in the period between the end of their prison sentence and when they are deported to their country of origin.
They're still violent offenders, career criminals and sex offenders. They're being deported - but that doesn't mean that they are rehabilitated.But for the fact that they're from, and going to, another country, they're no different to ex-cons that you'd have all around you.
It never does.They're still violent offenders, career criminals and sex offenders. They're being deported - but that doesn't mean that they are rehabilitated.
They're still violent offenders, career criminals and sex offenders. They're being deported - but that doesn't mean that they are rehabilitated.
there are legal ways that are significantly cheaper to getting in this country