And the boats keep coming

[DC]

i wonder for a while now what his solution to the problem is.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by DC

i wonder for a while now what his solution to the problem is.

He doesn't have his own solution. His preferred solution is a return to the Pacific Solution, even though the prevailing opinion among refugee advocates, government officials, and others is that it won't work.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Wildy

He doesn't have his own solution. His preferred solution is a return to the Pacific Solution, even though the prevailing opinion among refugee advocates, government officials, and others is that it won't work.

well from what i read that "solution" actually seemed to work, atleast in the way that less people took the risk to go to Australia with a boat.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by DC

well from what i read that "solution" actually seemed to work, atleast in the way that less people took the risk to go to Australia with a boat.

If you say looked at the Wikipedia page then you already know one of the problems returning to the solution. If you know that you have a 70% chance of being resettled anywhere, you'd still take the risk. And the likelihood of it being Australia will probably increase now since I don't think that NZ (the second most common resettlement nation) will be as willing to accept these people.

[DC]

Originally Posted by Wildy

If you say looked at the Wikipedia page then you already know one of the problems returning to the solution. If you know that you have a 70% chance of being resettled anywhere, you'd still take the risk. And the likelihood of it being Australia will probably increase now since I don't think that NZ (the second most common resettlement nation) will be as willing to accept these people.

good point.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

I prefer to make my point by answering your rhetoric, hyperbole and sophistry in kind, thank you very much.

No sweat, just trying to be helpful

Ambitions ≠ capabilities.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

What my link showed was that the group in question wanted to be rescued by Australia rather than by Indonesia.

That's a might sharp razor you have there.... for the hair splitting I mean.

I've pointed out the difference between your claim that:

"People are leaving Indonesia and expecting an escort."

and the actual situation which is that single group of would-be immigrants expressed, during a phone call initiated by an ABC reporter, a quite unrealistic desire to be rescued by Australia rather than by Indonesia.

It's absurd that you would attempt to shrug this off as splitting hairs.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

No, I didn't miss it, because it didn't happen. I was the one who noticed your error and corrected it.

Indeed you were, perhaps I should have said "acknowledged" my error. Whatever.

Yes, you should have told the truth. Then you wouldn't be in the position of having to defend yourself twice in respect of a single incident.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Accroche-toi à ton rêve.

It's all I have left.

A valid argument would serve you far better.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Nor do I. And?

I misread - it's been a very long day today.

Nobody is compelling you to post. If you write crap you'll be called on it.

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

You blame Indonesia? Nothing for Gillard? Surely she has some hand in this? Perhaps you - blinded by her integrity - consider her free of blame too?

You'll be providing a link to where I said these things, will you?

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

But I don't blame Indonesia as much as I do Australia, the boats wouldn't leave there if the carrots weren't dangled.

All I see is you blaming Julia Gillard for everything that you feel is wrong with the world. That this has severely undermined your ability to have your arguments on this issue taken seriously is probably something that you need to address.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Would like to hear more of your thoughts on this. In what ways is Australia encouraging people to arrive by boat?

Fast track through detention.
Government homes & benefits.
Virtual guarantee that they can stay once they arrive.

There is more that we have discussed here many times.

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Should we seek any active measures to discourage these people?

Of course.

Originally Posted by DC

well from what i read that "solution" actually seemed to work, atleast in the way that less people took the risk to go to Australia with a boat.

Correct.

Originally Posted by Wildy

If you say looked at the Wikipedia page then you already know one of the problems returning to the solution. If you know that you have a 70% chance of being resettled anywhere, you'd still take the risk. And the likelihood of it being Australia will probably increase now since I don't think that NZ (the second most common resettlement nation) will be as willing to accept these people.

Wiki!?!
Are you serious?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

You'll be providing a link to where I said these things, will you?

It's a question - hence the question mark.
Let me put it another way. Is there any reason that fully absolves Gillard from being held to account for this situation? She is the PM, she has the power to change things and she sits on her hands. In the meantime people drown at sea.

Worst PM ever.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

<snip>

Worst PM ever.

So you've said, ad nauseum.

It's why I made this observation:

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

All I see is you blaming Julia Gillard for everything that you feel is wrong with the world. That this has severely undermined your ability to have your arguments on this issue taken seriously is probably something that you need to address.

Never mind. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Never mind. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this.

I said earlier that she should be held accountable for what she is responsible for, nothing more, nothing less.

I would welcome your thoughts here, so I ask again:

Is there any reason that fully absolves Gillard from being held to account for this situation?

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Fast track through detention.
Government homes & benefits.
Virtual guarantee that they can stay once they arrive.

How do you feel about people, including children, being held in detention for extended periods of time. Surely our aim should be to assess their status in the shortest period possible. Can we justify prolonging this period simply for the purposes of a deterrent to others who might be considering making the journey?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

How do you feel about people, including children, being held in detention for extended periods of time. Surely our aim should be to assess their status in the shortest period possible. Can we justify prolonging this period simply for the purposes of a deterrent to others who might be considering making the journey?

Our aim should be to avoid children being put in jeopardy in the first place, shouldn't it?

It is from this point that I reckon discussions should commence.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Our aim should be to avoid children being put in jeopardy in the first place, shouldn't it?

It is from this point that I reckon discussions should commence.

Yes, but it seemed you were suggesting that "fast tracking" people through detention was something that is encouraging boat arrivals.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Yes, but it seemed you were suggesting that "fast tracking" people through detention was something that is encouraging boat arrivals.

Doesn't it? It certainly doesn't dissuade anybody.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Doesn't it? It certainly doesn't dissuade anybody.

Well then might I have an answer to my previous question?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Well then might I have an answer to my previous question?

I already have answered. Children would not drown at sea or be smashed on rocks if they did not get on boats. Nor would children need to be placed in detention if they did not arrive by boat.

Stopping them at the source will save lives, deterrents will assist in this.

I am not in favour of incarcerating children, but I am even less in favour of them dying at sea. Sometimes one might need to seem cruel to be kind.

[Sideroxylon]

Prolonging the processing of refugees as a policy measure is wrong. It not a matter of seemingly cruel it is. It is unfair and must do psychological harm. It is a shame for a country like Australia that holds and espouses human rights.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Prolonging the processing of refugees as a policy measure is wrong. It not a matter of seemingly cruel it is. It is unfair and must do psychological harm. It is a shame for a country like Australia that holds and espouses human rights.

I agree. I guess it would be better if they died at sea, huh.

Stop them getting on the boats and the detention issues are academic. If there are children that arrive - release them as early as possible.

Prevention is better than cure, as they say.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I agree. I guess it would be better if they died at sea, huh.

Stop them getting on the boats and the detention issues are academic. If there are children that arrive - release them as early as possible.

Prevention is better than cure, as they say.

Name the logical fallacy. This is why people get pissed off with you.

[DC]

what was the cost of the old system with those camps on those islands?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

Name the logical fallacy. This is why people get pissed off with you.

I am making the simple point that if the boats didn't leave, there would not be deaths - I assume you follow this line of thought - and if they do not arrive, there is no need for detention. It's pretty simple I'd have thought. Cart before the horse and all that.

You wanted to play the appeal to emotion card, I simply played one back.

BTW, pissing people off has never bothered me much and never will. My grandfather taught me something that was very important and it holds true for me today: "What other people think of me is none of my business". It gives me total freedom, you should try it sometime.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by DC

what was the cost of the old system with those camps on those islands?

I think a drop in the ocean compared to today. But by all means, bring in some numbers for us for us to discuss.

[Sideroxylon]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I am making the simple point that if the boats didn't leave, there would not be deaths - I assume you follow this line of thought - and if they do not arrive, there is no need for detention. It's pretty simple I'd have thought. Cart before the horse and all that.

You wanted to play the appeal to emotion card, I simply played one back.

BTW, pissing people off has never bothered me much and never will. My grandfather taught me something that was very important and it holds true for me today: "What other people think of me is none of my business". It gives me total freedom, you should try it sometime.

I prefer to reflect on criticism directed at me so I will pass on your advice and any further exchanges with you.

[DC]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I think a drop in the ocean compared to today. But by all means, bring in some numbers for us for us to discuss.

so you want a solution to be implemented without knowing the cost of it?

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon

...and must do psychological harm...

I'll just leave these positions from the AMA and APS here.

[Dcdrac]

When I read threads like this I think of the people who, although it is born out of desperation, have the sheer guts, drive and courage to allow themselves to put their lives on the line by getting on a ricekty boat and launching themselves across the ocean.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

When I read threads like this I think of the people who, although it is born out of desperation, have the sheer guts, drive and courage to allow themselves to put their lives on the line by getting on a ricekty boat and launching themselves across the ocean.

I assume you have evidence to support the work ethic and drive you mention?

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publica...w-arrivals.pdf

Of the migration streams represented in this survey, Humanitarian entrants are most likely to be unemployed, even after five years of settlement

The problem is that they also put their children on boats also. People die.

And who's to say those that miss out on coming here would not be even better citizens?

[bit_pattern]

Originally Posted by DC

what was the cost of the old system with those camps on those islands?

A cool billion or so

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...462523594.html

Quote:

The report, prepared by Oxfam and A Just Australia, which oppose the offshore-processing scheme, calculated it cost more than $500,000 per person to process fewer than 1700 asylum seekers in Nauru, Manus and Christmas Island. By comparison, the cost of holding asylum seekers in a mainland centre, based on Department of Immigration estimates, was 3.5 per cent of the running costs of the Pacific solution.

The report found it cost $1830 a day to keep someone on Christmas Island compared with $238 a day at Sydney's Villawood detention centre.

[uvar]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Of the migration streams represented in this survey, Humanitarian entrants are most likely to be unemployed, even after five years of settlement

I think the section introduction is more useful than its one line summary:

Quote:

While Humanitarian entrants are less likely to be working compared with other streams, they are far more likely to be studying full-time, studying and working or studying and looking after their families. Given that we are exploring only the first five years of settlement in this study, this is not a surprising result as many Humanitarian entrants are strongly focused on creating a new life, and studying for a qualification is an important step in this journey. As outlined in chart 11 earlier, after 4 years living in Australia, around 40% of Humanitarian entrants have a job of some type. (p. 27)

About 50% are doing at least some study, while 3.3% claimed to be unemployed and not looking for work (not including retirees, etc) which doesn't seem too bad personally.

Speaking of study,

Quote:

In total 34.8% (n=1874) Humanitarian entrants have a technical or university qualification, either before or after arriving in Australia. This compares favourably with the ABS 2006 Census which indicates that 39.4% of the Australian population 15 years and older has a technical or university (p. 18)

albeit those 18yo+ with less than high school education are very unlikely to have any further education (Table 5, p. 18).

Do you have any thoughts about Chart 52? Only 38% of humanitarian migrants rated themselves "happy most of the time" versus ~75% for the other groups.

[Sideroxylon]

Welcome, uvar. Nice first post.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by uvar

I think the section introduction is more useful than its one line summary:

<polite snip>

Gosh, I wonder why Alfie didn't post that information. It does seem rather important.


Welcome to the discussion, uvar.

[Dcdrac]

I wander what the aborigines thought when they first saw the ships from Europe appear..

And the boats keep coming maybe....

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

I wonder what the aborigines thought when they first saw the ships from Europe appear.

And the boats keep coming maybe....

The first documented words said by an indigenous Australian to a European were shouted from the shore at Cape Solander to a ship commanded by Captain John Hunter, RN on 25 January 1788.

The words were ''Warra, Warra!", which means "Go away!"

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

When I read threads like this I think of the people who, although it is born out of desperation, have the sheer guts, drive and courage to allow themselves to put their lives on the line by getting on a ricekty boat and launching themselves across the ocean.

I assume you have evidence to support the work ethic and drive you mention?

Perhaps you should start basing your opinions on the things people actually say.

We've already seen you misspeaking, misreading and misinterpreting things and it's unlikey that the addition of misquoting to the mix will help your arguments.

[Hallo Alfie]

I actually have little stomach for a debate about the work ethic, guts, drive etc of any of our arrivals - this topic was brought in by someone else. I have no doubt they have guts and drive, so do many others. I was however curious around any evidence that suggests our boat arrivals had more than others, I (and I think not unnaturally) extended that to the workplace.

Ultimately, it is their safe arrival that concerns me and the fairness around same.

That said, my question around boat arrivals being better citizens than others (which I understood to be the thrust of the point made) remains unanswered and unsupported.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

I actually have little stomach for a debate about the work ethic, guts, drive etc of any of our arrivals - this topic was brought in by someone else.

<snip>

No, the topic was introduced by your misattribution of a phrase - work ethic - to a poster who didn't use it and your following it up with a cherry-picked statement about employment rates for humanitarian entrants which, as cherry-picked statements so often do, failed to reflect the true state of affairs - the whole then rounded off with yet another appeal to emotion.

Little wonder that you now find yourself with little stomach to continue with that line of 'debate'.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

No, the topic was introduced by your misattribution of a phrase -

Incorrect.
And if I have misunderstood the thrust of the post by Dcdrac, I will happily be corrected by him/her with an expansion on their thoughts. I will leave that to Dcdrac rather than we, who are simply now guessing.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

No, the topic was introduced by your misattribution of a phrase - work ethic - to a poster who didn't use it

Incorrect.

<snip>

Why was the text (coloured red in my restored version above) in my post redacted? To make your claim that I was incorrect seem more believable?

I don't think it will work.

And pretending that my claim that you misattributed that phrase to another poster is "guessing" is pretty unlikely to fly either. It's right there on the page where everyone can see it.

[Hallo Alfie]

Yawn.

If I have misunderstood the thrust of Dcdrac's post I will happily be corrected by him/her.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Yawn.

If I have misunderstood the thrust of Dcdrac's post I will happily be corrected by him/her.

By all means, discuss possible misunderstandings with whomever you wish, but the issue of your misattributing words to people who didn't use them was raised by me, and it is I who will pursue the matter, regardless of your handwaving.

You might like to start with an honest response to this post:

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

When I read threads like this I think of the people who, although it is born out of desperation, have the sheer guts, drive and courage to allow themselves to put their lives on the line by getting on a ricekty boat and launching themselves across the ocean.

I assume you have evidence to support the work ethic and drive you mention?

Perhaps you should start basing your opinions on the things people actually say.

We've already seen you misspeaking, misreading and misinterpreting things and it's unlikey that the addition of misquoting to the mix will help your arguments.

And if you can stifle the yawns for long enough you might like to have a crack at answering the highlighted part of this post that you snipped out last time you pretended to address it:

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

No, the topic was introduced by your misattribution of a phrase - work ethic - to a poster who didn't use it and your following it up with a cherry-picked statement about employment rates for humanitarian entrants which, as cherry-picked statements so often do, failed to reflect the true state of affairs - the whole then rounded off with yet another appeal to emotion.

Little wonder that you now find yourself with little stomach to continue with that line of 'debate'.

We can save dealing with your hackneyed use of appeals to emotion until you've rested, if you wish.