And the boats keep coming

[uvar]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

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

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

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.

I note that you consider it your question, A.A. Alfie, so regardless of Dcdrac's point you are presumably be able to assuage my confusion.

When considering "better citizens", what measurement(s) would you use for comparison, or is the comparison purely subjective? What would a person with Australian citizenship (or one hoping to attain it) require to be considered "better"? What is the lower limit of this scale - that is, what qualities would the "worst" citizen have?

I may have misread your intent, but you seem to be suggesting discrimination of migrants based upon this comparison (otherwise it would appear the aim was merely to impugn the motives of those arriving on boats). Have I correctly understood you? If so, do you have any thoughts about persons born with Australian citizenship who would rate negatively, or what percentage of the population this might be?

[lionking]

And hi too uvar. Two very good opening posts. Spread your wings around the forum.

[Dcdrac]

the thrust is yes we should be worried about theirsafety nd also take into account why are they are coming why are they so depserapte to put themsleves in obivous danger my guess is, and that is all it is, is that they feel so desperate they are willing to risk themsleves for a chance of better life, my parentd were immigrants to the UK 50 years ago for those reasons, a chance at abetter life.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

the thrust is yes we should be worried about theirsafety nd also take into account why are they are coming why are they so depserapte to put themsleves in obivous danger my guess is, and that is all it is, is that they feel so desperate they are willing to risk themsleves for a chance of better life, my parentd were immigrants to the UK 50 years ago for those reasons, a chance at abetter life.

Thanks. Are you also inferring (as I assumed) that you think these traits make somehow for more hard working citizens? Whilst I do not necessarily disagree, I was wondering if there are reasons beyond personal experience that developed this viewpoint.

[DC]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Thanks. Are you also inferring (as I assumed) that you think these traits make somehow for more hard working citizens? Whilst I do not necessarily disagree, I was wondering if there are reasons beyond personal experience that developed this viewpoint.

so far you are the only one making that leap. why?

[Dcdrac]

Ripping yourself form ally ou know and in these case launcing yourself to sea in usafe conditions, suggests to me a level of drive and detemination.

Are these allowed to work legally when they reach Australia or are there laws preventing This

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Ripping yourself form ally ou know and in these case launcing yourself to sea in usafe conditions, suggests to me a level of drive and detemination.

Are these allowed to work legally when they reach Australia or are there laws preventing This

They can, but they do it hard. Here's a relevant article:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...802-23ihl.html

Quote:

THOUSANDS of asylum seekers are struggling to live on as little as $31 a day - less than the dole - camped in hostels and boarding houses across the country with no access to government language training or official job schemes.
In what threatens to create a new migrant underclass, some people have been forced to sleep on the floor without a mattress in crowded share houses after they are given a meagre six weeks to learn English, secure work and long-term accommodation.

[Krikkiter]

This is interesting also:

"There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illega...-1226200568050

"Three in four of the 58,400 visa overstayers came on tourist or holiday-working visas; one in seven arrived as students and one in 15 disappeared after being granted temporary residency.

Last year, only 6720 visa overstayers were sent home, most voluntarily, after applications to stay longer were rejected."

ETA: Not exactly the same subject but interesting nonetheless.

[Dcdrac]

Persoanlly I hve lived and worked in 3 different Countries, USA, Germany UK, my parents alos worked and lived in multiple locations finally settling in the UK as a base, so to me moving about where I need to be in order to live is not unusual.

[Hallo Alfie]

More than 200 asylum seekers arrived at Christmas Island this morning as the Defence Department said the Navy vessels charged with picking them up are starting to crack - literally - under the strain.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-1...island/4189606

The boat intercepted overnight represents the largest number of people to arrive on a single boat under the current Government, and more than 7,000 people have now arrived by boat this year.

This boat was lucky to get here; it took two days to complete the rescue after the distress calls due to poor conditions at sea. Inevitably there will be more deaths.

[Hallo Alfie]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-...cean-crossing/

More than 60 asylum seekers are missing, presumed dead - including a four-year-old boy - after a boat that left Indonesia for Australia six weeks ago disappeared without trace.

Family and friends of the missing have grave fears that the boat sank on the way to Christmas Island.

Tragic, predictable, inevitable and yet totally preventable.

Worst government, worst PM ever.

[uvar]

The panel led by Angus Houston is due to release its report tomorrow. I'm looking forward to some real progress; unfortunately it's worth remembering that without any knowledge of what policies might be proposed Tony Abbott has declared he will ignore it.

I would be surprised if anything the panel came up with was compatible with the Coalition's position anyway, so I suppose at least he's being honest.

(And yes, the Government might end up rejecting the recommendations too, but at least they've agreed to read them first.)

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by uvar

The panel led by Angus Houston is due to release its report tomorrow. I'm looking forward to some real progress; unfortunately it's worth remembering that without any knowledge of what policies might be proposed Tony Abbott has declared he will ignore it.

He's quite happy with the votes he's getting the way things are now. Why would he want to help solve anything.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by uvar

The panel led by Angus Houston is due to release its report tomorrow. I'm looking forward to some real progress; unfortunately it's worth remembering that without any knowledge of what policies might be proposed Tony Abbott has declared he will ignore it.

I would be surprised if anything the panel came up with was compatible with the Coalition's position anyway, so I suppose at least he's being honest.

(And yes, the Government might end up rejecting the recommendations too, but at least they've agreed to read them first.)

I agree with you. The report will no doubt destroy Abbott's grasp for the moral high ground. He won't care though. Votes trump dead asylum seekers to him.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by lionking

I agree with you. The report will no doubt destroy Abbott's grasp for the moral high ground. He won't care though. Votes trump dead asylum seekers to him.

I can't actually see that quite happening somehow. This is Gillard's problem - not Abbott's. The electorate are not idiots either, they understand who undid a policy that was working. They also know who is in power right now and that is Labor with the Green's and independents. It is also their's to fix.

Meanwhile more have died because she refuses to make a logical or compromise decision. She really is a spectacular waste of space.

[uvar]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Meanwhile more have died because she refuses to make a logical or compromise decision. She really is a spectacular waste of space.

The coalition refuses to compromise on offshore processing in Nauru.

The greens refuse to compromise on no offshore processing at all.

How exactly are Labor refusing to compromise?

[lionking]

Originally Posted by uvar

The coalition refuses to compromise on offshore processing in Nauru.

The greens refuse to compromise on no offshore processing at all.

How exactly are Labor refusing to compromise?

Please. No logic. It doesn't fit well in this thread.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by uvar

The coalition refuses to compromise on offshore processing in Nauru.

Correct. They say (and correctly) that they have had their policy for some 10 years. They also claim it worked, Labor could simply go back to it.

Originally Posted by uvar

The greens refuse to compromise on no offshore processing at all.

Again correct. Yet they share power (so to speak) with Labor. The Greens have their policy in place as it stands and people die.

Originally Posted by uvar

How exactly are Labor refusing to compromise?

If they did compromise, we would actually have some sort of policy in place, now wouldn't we?. They have refused to budge from their end game either (i.e. Malaysia) and have cowardly delayed making any decision and instead call together a committee that no one will listen too.

Utterly useless.

[Wildy]

Why is it bad that Labor doesn't compromise, even though we've seen them actually do it before, but it's a good thing if the Coalition doesn't compromise?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

Why is it bad that Labor doesn't compromise, even though we've seen them actually do it before, but it's a good thing if the Coalition doesn't compromise?

If I said that, please cite it.

What I am saying is that the problem belongs to the government, they also have to work with the parliament they have been given (as Gillard et al have conveniently stated from time to time). It is totally incumbent on them to find a solution and Gillard is failing, to the tune of some 850+ lives so far.

Here's a picture of one of the latest (assumed dead)

[uvar]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

What I am saying is that the problem belongs to the government, they also have to work with the parliament they have been given (as Gillard et al have conveniently stated from time to time).

The problem is that roughly 50% of the parliament is outright refusing to cooperate on this matter. The only way to "work with" the Coalition here would be to acquiesce entirely to their demands. That's not compromise and I find it astounding that you blame Gillard & Labor for the other side's obstinance.

Of course, if you consider the Coalition asylum seeker policy to be the best possible solution - or stronger, take that as undeniable fact - then I can see how that would make sense though vehemently disagree.

Do you think their asylum seeker policy is the best possible solution? Alternatively, do you think their policy is so drastically better that even if imperfect it should be implemented as soon as possible? Especially considering the content of this thread, do you consider that their policy is supported by evidence and not diminished? What is your position on the "perfection" of the Labor or Greens asylum seeker policies, and whether evidence supports or undermines them? (Both the current asylum seeker solution, and the one that Labor wants to implement) What was your definition of "perfect" when thinking about these questions, and was it objective or subjective? (I'd appreciate answers - they're mostly binary questions - but honestly I'd be happy if you just thought about them.)

I could end by posting a picture of one of the many who have died in their own country because of persecution, discrimination or neglect, but it would be disrespectful to the dead.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by uvar

The problem is that roughly 50% of the parliament is outright refusing to cooperate on this matter. The only way to "work with" the Coalition here would be to acquiesce entirely to their demands.

So why don't they do it?
They 'acquiesced entirely' to the Greens to get power by implementing the carbon tax. They were "working with the parliament they had then". If Gillard wanted to stop the boats, she could.

Originally Posted by uvar

That's not compromise and I find it astounding that you blame Gillard & Labor for the other side's obstinance.

Who was it that dismantled a policy that was working?

Originally Posted by uvar

Of course, if you consider the Coalition asylum seeker policy to be the best possible solution

I see it as a solution - and it is the one most likely to be implemented under the parliament we currently have. To the end that will stop the deaths at sea it should be implemented asap.

[Wildy]

Originally Posted by uvar

The problem is that roughly 50% of the parliament is outright refusing to cooperate on this matter. The only way to "work with" the Coalition here would be to acquiesce entirely to their demands. That's not compromise and I find it astounding that you blame Gillard & Labor for the other side's obstinance.

I believe that Scott Morrison has said that even if Labor decided to acquiesce to the Coalition's demands it doesn't mean that they will support them.

I'm of the opinion that the Coalition will only try to stop the boats when they are in power, they'll happily let more and more of these people die simply because they are in opposition.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Wildy

I believe that Scott Morrison has said that even if Labor decided to acquiesce to the Coalition's demands it doesn't mean that they will support them.

I'm of the opinion that the Coalition will only try to stop the boats when they are in power, they'll happily let more and more of these people die simply because they are in opposition.

This is true. Every death at sea adds to Abbott's popularity. You can't get more cynical than that.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wildy

I believe that Scott Morrison has said that even if Labor decided to acquiesce to the Coalition's demands it doesn't mean that they will support them.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean?

Originally Posted by Wildy

I'm of the opinion that the Coalition will only try to stop the boats when they are in power, they'll happily let more and more of these people die simply because they are in opposition.

Yet the reality is that Labor undid the laws that were working, the Greens actually love this policy that "lets more and more of these people die" and Gillard refuses to make a decision that will end the stalemate.

Your opinion counts for very little when lined up against the facts or, for that matter until your prediction proves to be true.

[Akhenaten]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

Yet the reality is that Labor undid the laws that were working, the Greens actually love this policy that "lets more and more of these people die" and Gillard refuses to make a decision that will end the stalemate.

Why is "lets more and more of these people die" in scare quotes?

Is it meant to let people know that this is yet more hyperbole and nothing to do with the facts of the matter?

Seems redundant.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Why is "lets more and more of these people die" in scare quotes?

Originally Posted by Wildy

I believe that Scott Morrison has said that even if Labor decided to acquiesce to the Coalition's demands it doesn't mean that they will support them.

I'm of the opinion that the Coalition will only try to stop the boats when they are in power, they'll happily let more and more of these people die simply because they are in opposition.

Originally Posted by Akhenaten

Is it meant to let people know that this is yet more hyperbole and nothing to do with the facts of the matter?

Seems redundant.

You might be right about it being "hyperbole" and "redundant" (are those "scare quotes" ok? ). Perhaps you should take it up with others.

[Akhenaten]

Now I see. The quotes were meant to indicate that you'd taken someone else's words and put them in a completely different sentence of your own contrivance to create the impression that the person who used the words originally did so in your artificial context.

That's so much better than mere hyperbole.

[Hallo Alfie]

Not even close. But thanks for playing.

[uvar]

Well, the final report is out - see your favorite news site for details or read the report itself here.

From what I've seen so far I'm a litle underwhelmed, but I haven't looked at the reasoning behind their decisions yet.

[Hallo Alfie]

Among other things, the main recommendations appear to be:
- reopening Nauru
- turning back the boats
- increasing the humanitarian intake
- development and coperation of strategies with Indonesia and Maalaysia
- strategies with source countries
- offshore processing in PNG
- transfer and resettlement arrangements with Malaysia
- reduce family reunions
- zero sponsorship arrangements by those arriving by "irregular maritime means"

Hmm. It will be interesting politics this week.

[Hallo Alfie]

I wonder when the PM will get onto the phone about Nauru?

I just heard Christine Milne on the radio. She has virtually rejected the report outright saying it takes us back to the "bad old days of the Howard years".
I guess that means they wont be on board (no pun intended) with any of the proposals.

Also interesting, Houston states that onshore processing has acted as a "pull factor".


I can't wait to see how Gillard plays this one out. Much backpedalling and obfuscation one anticipates.

[uvar]

Minus a few parts that still seem unnecessarily cruel, I find myself agreeing with what I've read so far (edit: in the sense that the recommendations would reduce the number of "irregular maritime arrivals" and related deaths). Liking it is another matter...

I do wonder about the longer-term recommendations, which I wouldn't expect to survive any substantial changes in government.

[Hallo Alfie]

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/pol...813-24417.html

I must say I am feeling rather validated by this report. More:

On pull factors:

Quote:

Air Chief Marshal Houston said that onshore processing was "seeing a very big pull" towards Australia.

"Unless we do something different ... the problem is just going to get worse," he said. "Onshore processing encourages people to jump on boats."

On Malaysia

Quote:

The people-swap deal with Malaysia should be ''built on, not discarded'' but the panel warned that, if it was to work, protection measures and safety guarantees for the fate of asylum seekers sent from Australia to Malaysia were needed.

On TPVs

Quote:

Air Chief Marshal Houston said that the panel had looked at temporary protection visas. He said they would not be needed in Nauru or PNG, but a form of the visa may be required if vulnerable people needed to come to Australia.

[lionking]

Now that Gillard has totally compromised and agrees to the Nauru and Manus Island, Abbott must, if he has any principal at all, agree to pass the legislation. If not, all will know without the shadow of a doubt that he's happy to accept deaths at sea in order to get in power.

My betting is that he will reject the legislation, proving to the world what a piece of scum he is. And confirming that he is the Worst Opposition Leader Ever. Come on, gutless one Abbott, prove me wrong.

[Hallo Alfie]

It must really suck for many here, in government, the greens (who are squealing like infants) for this independant committee to essentially validate so much of what the coalition has been saying all along.

It is simply further confirmation of Gillard's ineptitude.

Suck it up!

Like I said, the politics will be interesting this week and the worst PM ever now has a chance to finally try and do the right thing. Only time will tell how this plays out but the potential political machinations are tantalising.

[uvar]

Originally Posted by A.A. Alfie

It must really suck for many here, in government, the greens (who are squealing like infants) for this independant committee to essentially validate so much of what the coalition has been saying all along.

It is simply further confirmation of Gillard's ineptitude.

Now now, don't pretend like it's all their ideas - Malysia and Nauru (and PNG), less family reunions but not turning boats around (the idea is sound, but various requirements for it to be acceptable aren't currently met). About the only thing the Greens can celebrate is the suggested increase to 20,000+ though, and they did seem spectactularly angry.

Quote:

Like I said, the politics will be interesting this week and the worst PM ever now has a chance to finally try and do the right thing. Only time will tell how this plays out but the potential political machinations are tantalising.

She/Labor have agreed to support all the recommendations in principle, which seems like a fair attempt at "the right thing" (except for those who don't want offshore processing, but I don't think Alfie is among them!). I hope the Coalition takes this seriously and doesn't try to pick and choose the parts they want. It will take time, but perhaps not very much of it!

[lionking]

Originally Posted by uvar

Now now, don't pretend like it's all their ideas - Malysia and Nauru (and PNG), less family reunions but not turning boats around (the idea is sound, but various requirements for it to be acceptable aren't currently met). About the only thing the Greens can celebrate is the suggested increase to 20,000+ though, and they did seem spectactularly angry.


She/Labor have agreed to support all the recommendations in principle, which seems like a fair attempt at "the right thing" (except for those who don't want offshore processing, but I don't think Alfie is among them!). I hope the Coalition takes this seriously and doesn't try to pick and choose the parts they want. It will take time, but perhaps not very much of it!

Good analysis, but make no mistake, the Coalition will take the path which will maximize their vote. The pollsters and focus groups will be working overtime tonight.

[Dcdrac]

Did you know that as the economy as slumped here all a lot of Aussies are heading home, and a lot of them are visa jumpers/over stayers.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Dcdrac

Did you know that as the economy as slumped here all a lot of Aussies are heading home, and a lot of them are visa jumpers/over stayers.

Sorry, this makes no sense. Where's "here" to start with?