PDA

View Full Version : Immigration policy



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Desmond
22-07-2013, 07:36 PM
I thought Carr's claim was for 'some boats' not a percentage of all boat arrivals over an extended period.
I think you're right.

Ian Murray
22-07-2013, 09:39 PM
I think you're right.
To take it out of the realm of conjecture, irregular maritime arrivals granted asylum as refugees were:

Final grant rate (IMAs), 2008-09 to 2011-12

2008-09 209 grants, 28 refusals, 209 total decisions, grant rate 100%
2009-10 2151 grants, 28 refusals, 2179 total decisions, grant rate 98.7%%
2010-11 2719 grants, 190 refusals, 2909 total decisions, grant rate 93.5%%
2011-12 4766 grants, 474 refusals, 5240 total decisions, grant rate 91.0%

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-as.php

Hobbes
23-07-2013, 04:28 PM
Bill Shorten (more than a year later than Tim Blair made the same comparison) makes a comment about the zealots who are so keen to turn (someone elses) suburbs into ghettoes full of illegal immigrants permanently on the dole that a few hundred deaths at sea are of no concern:



If we were going to have a football match at the MCG, large sporting stadium in Melbourne, and if you knew 100,000 people coming to the grand final and if you knew that 4 per cent or 4,000 were not going to get home safely and they were going to die, you’d cancel that football game. (http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/pre_shortened/)

Patrick Byrom
23-07-2013, 07:28 PM
Bill Shorten (more than a year later than Tim Blair made the same comparison) makes a comment about the zealots who are so keen to turn (someone elses) suburbs into ghettoes full of illegal immigrants permanently on the dole that a few hundred deaths at sea are of no concern:
The problem with the analogy is that the difference in the outcomes in the analogy is much greater than in the real example - missing a football match/death compared to remaining in Indonesia/death.

A better analogy would be:
If a drug significantly improved the lives of 96% of cancer sufferers, but killed 4%, should it be banned?

I think most people would support the cancer sufferers being given a choice.

I won't comment on Hobbes' actual post, which contains a few inaccurate statements :)

Capablanca-Fan
24-07-2013, 02:32 AM
If a drug significantly improved the lives of 96% of cancer sufferers, but killed 4%, should it be banned?

I think most people would support the cancer sufferers being given a choice.
Unfortunately, "most people" doesn't include many Yanks, including the FDA (Milton Friedman called it "Frustrating Drug Advancement") and even the drug companies themselves because of the absurdly litigious Yank society thanks to its lack of 'loser pays' that other Western countries have. The same reason applies to both—it is relatively easy to show that a drug caused harm, but very hard to prove that a lack of a drug caused harm. So the easy way out for an FDA or company bureaucrat is to hold up the drug—he won't be blamed for the 96% who die of cancer since it's known to be an often lethal disease, but could easily be hauled over the coal by relatives of the 4% (and their shyster ambulance chasers).

Patrick Byrom
24-07-2013, 10:10 AM
Unfortunately, "most people" doesn't include many Yanks, including the FDA (Milton Friedman called it "Frustrating Drug Advancement") and even the drug companies themselves because of the absurdly litigious Yank society thanks to its lack of 'loser pays' that other Western countries have. The same reason applies to both—it is relatively easy to show that a drug caused harm, but very hard to prove that a lack of a drug caused harm. So the easy way out for an FDA or company bureaucrat is to hold up the drug—he won't be blamed for the 96% who die of cancer since it's known to be an often lethal disease, but could easily be hauled over the coal by relatives of the 4% (and their shyster ambulance chasers).
This is way off-topic, so if you give an example of such a drug, I'll reply in a more appropriate thread.

Kevin Bonham
25-07-2013, 11:33 PM
Tony Abbott has described so-called "border control" as a "national emergency".

Can anyone remotely sympathetic to the idea that our LOTO is not just a fruitcake explain to me why the current asylum seeker situation is a "national emergency" as opposed to a national inconvenience (and a humanitarian problem affecting people who may be seeking to become members of this nation)?

Damodevo
26-07-2013, 12:26 AM
Tony Abbott has described so-called "border control" as a "national emergency".

Can anyone remotely sympathetic to the idea that our LOTO is not just a fruitcake explain to me why the current asylum seeker situation is a "national emergency" as opposed to a national inconvenience (and a humanitarian problem affecting people who may be seeking to become members of this nation)?

Given there are over 1100 people dead in the sea caused by this farce then yes it probably is right to label it an 'emergency'. If they aren't stopped there will be more.

Damodevo
26-07-2013, 12:36 AM
To take it out of the realm of conjecture, irregular maritime arrivals granted asylum as refugees were:

Final grant rate (IMAs), 2008-09 to 2011-12

2008-09 209 grants, 28 refusals, 209 total decisions, grant rate 100%
2009-10 2151 grants, 28 refusals, 2179 total decisions, grant rate 98.7%%
2010-11 2719 grants, 190 refusals, 2909 total decisions, grant rate 93.5%%
2011-12 4766 grants, 474 refusals, 5240 total decisions, grant rate 91.0%

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-as.php

Given that even people smugglers themselves have found their way in and the tribunals are stacked with those sympathetic to this avenue then those percentages are meaningless. Even Carr admits (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3790516.htm) too many have been admitted too easily


Yeah, we've reached the view that as a result of court and tribunal decisions, it's coming up wrong. We need a tougher, more hard-edged assessment.


TWO (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_our_gatekeepers_told_to_let_em_in) more federal officials who check refugee claims have come forward to confirm they are under pressure to let more people in.

The two members of the Rudd Government’s Refugee Review Tribunal say they operate under a “culture of fear”, with their jobs under threat if they reject too many claims.

They believe two members have already lost their jobs for being too tough, and more could follow when the next round of appointments (and dumpings) are announced next month.

Nice trick isn't it? Stack the deck in favour of those willing to give them a free pass and then turn around and claim the high percentages are 'proof' they are genuine refugees.

Why the hell else would they be dumping (http://www.news.com.au/national-news/most-asylum-sekers-to-australia-dump-their-passports/story-e6frfkvr-1226051508062) their passports?


MORE than 80 per cent of asylum seekers arriving in Australia by boat throw away their passports before landing, presenting a security nightmare for ASIO and immigration authorities.

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2013, 12:50 AM
Given there are over 1100 people dead in the sea caused by this farce then yes it probably is right to label it an 'emergency'. If they aren't stopped there will be more.

I didn't ask about "emergency". I asked about "national emergency". A national emergency is, by definition, an emergency for our nation.

People from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran etc dying at sea en route to seeking asylum somewhere else is arguably an emergency for their nations. Except that some of them at least are fleeing much greater emergencies to get here and figuring that the risk of dying is worth it, even if they end up detained for many years.

I add that the c. 1000 deaths is over c. five years, and there are plenty of things that would have killed more than 1000 Australians in that time that have not been declared to be "national emergencies".

In my view, what Abbott's language does, very deliberately, is play on deep-seated fears about invasion from the north by boat.

Capablanca-Fan
26-07-2013, 01:03 AM
This is way off-topic, so if you give an example of such a drug, I'll reply in a more appropriate thread.
You opened the door, and I was basically agreeing with you! Compare the classic article “Frustrating Drug Advancement” by Milton Friedman (http://0055d26.netsolhost.com/friedman/pdfs/newsweek/NW.01.08.1973.pdf), and the Stossel clip below.
Dan1LFrzyII

Damodevo
26-07-2013, 01:05 AM
I didn't ask about "emergency". I asked about "national emergency". A national emergency is, by definition, an emergency for our nation.

People from Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran etc dying at sea en route to seeking asylum somewhere else is arguably an emergency for their nations.

No an emergency for 'our nation' is an emergency that 'our nation' is responsible for. And given that the massive spike in boats has come after we relaxed our laws (and not after any change in those countries) then it most definitely is our responsibility.


Except that some of them at least are fleeing much greater emergencies to get here and figuring that the risk of dying is worth it, even if they end up detained for many years.

They are mostly from Sri Lanka and Iran (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/iranians-now-top-years-asylum-seeker-arrivals/story-fn9hm1gu-1226680990735?sv=30612843b92ab15617bbad762de9314f) and neither country is at war so that is false. Chances are the people smugglers haven't told them the risks - fancy that? - so they have no idea. And if even Carr knows they are mostly economic immigrants - as also witnessed by their disposal of documents - then so should you.


I add that the c. 1000 deaths is over c. five years, and there are plenty of things that would have killed more than 1000 Australians in that time that have not been declared to be "national emergencies".

Yes it is over five years (gee I wonder what even precipitated such a sudden surge in boats?) but the point is that they have been accelerating over the past year.

The other main point is that these are deaths we can actually do something about in a way that will save money.


In my view, what Abbott's language does, very deliberately, is play on deep-seated fears about invasion from the north by boat.

Invasion as in someone taking the country from the north? If that is what you are implying then that charge is idiotic. If, on the other hand, you are saying that he is playing on fears of too many people coming at great cost in a way that outsources our immigration program to people smugglers and the whim of global happenstance, then that is a very real concern.

Abbott, it would seem, has much more of a clue on this issue than you.

pax
26-07-2013, 02:08 AM
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=578900072136032&set=a.223592677666775.73092.223583594334350&type=1&theater

Damodevo
26-07-2013, 02:24 AM
Greg Sheridan is usually quite favourable to the ALP on foreign relations. But...
(http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/work-or-fail-at-least-coalition-stepping-up/story-e6frg76f-1226685244393)


The death by drowning of more than 1100 people since Labor changed border protection policy in 2008 surely qualifies the phenomenon as a national emergency. But so, too, does the illegal arrival in Australia of nearly 50,000 people by boat in that time, and the effective collapse of Australian control over its borders.

antichrist
26-07-2013, 05:39 AM
the biggest crime about the boat people is the money spent unnecessarily - but a thousand times more than that has been spent in Iraq that was absolutely none of our business - also there was a thousand times more deaths. And that was LIberal Party policy. They help create the refugees, Labor is left carrying the can for their problems. That was one of the reasons why LIbs were voted out. As one who demonstrated against that war, I can say ""I told you so!""

Damodevo
26-07-2013, 08:10 AM
the biggest crime about the boat people is the money spent unnecessarily - but a thousand times more than that has been spent in Iraq that was absolutely none of our business - also there was a thousand times more deaths. And that was LIberal Party policy. They help create the refugees, Labor is left carrying the can for their problems. That was one of the reasons why LIbs were voted out. As one who demonstrated against that war, I can say ""I told you so!""

First of all, how could the Libs have 'create the refugees' when the spike was during KRudd's term just after he loosened the laws. Second, as I've already pointed out most of the refugees are coming from Sri Lanka, Iran, and Afghanistan. None are connected to the Iraq war (the first two countries are not at war, civil or otherwise). And the spike in AS came in 2008, not 2003. And the libs were voted out in 2007 probably because of Work Choices and the union scare campaign.

What you are saying is especially ridiculous considering KRudd was convinced (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s685074.htm) Saddam Hussein had WMD (which was one of the main motivating factors)


There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction.

He does.

Kevin Bonham
26-07-2013, 11:31 AM
No an emergency for 'our nation' is an emergency that 'our nation' is responsible for.

That is not a normal definition. Cause and effect in "emergencies" where there is interplay between the actions of nations can often be argued endlessly. If there is a famine in some African country and the US could have stopped it by giving more foreign aid, or some other African country could have stopped it by assisting in the deposing of a dictator, that's a "national emergency" for the country that has the famine, not the country that caused the famine.

In the US there is an ongoing use of "national emergency" powers to deal with terrorist threats that disrupt "national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States". This is classified as a national emergency for the United States because the United States is significantly threatened by it.


They are mostly from Sri Lanka and Iran (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/iranians-now-top-years-asylum-seeker-arrivals/story-fn9hm1gu-1226680990735?sv=30612843b92ab15617bbad762de9314f) and neither country is at war so that is false.

Once again you show that in your case reading what the other person has posted carefully is not your strong suit, and indeed is probably a void suit. I wrote "Except that some of them at least [...]" (emphasis added) and nothing you write referring to them being "mostly" from elsewhere is logically capable of refuting that statement.

Furthermore, your "mostly" is wrong anyway. The stats provided on the page you link to show that 2012 is the only year for which the combined percentage from Sri Lanka and Iran exceeded 50% and that only just. For 2013 those nations supplied a combined 44.7% with Sri Lankans outnumbered by Afghans.

And finally it is not necessary for a country to be "at war" for minorities to be persecuted enough to have very good reason to leave.


And if even Carr knows they are mostly economic immigrants - as also witnessed by their disposal of documents - then so should you.

Bob Carr knows full well that isn't true (http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/28/bob-carr/are-boat-people-economic-migrants/) and is involved in political posturing.


Invasion as in someone taking the country from the north?

Not the whole country of course. What I'm referring to is a long-seated fear that numbers of "boat people" would become so large that the northern coast could not be defended against them and they would continually land on Australian shores, perhaps taking over parts of the NT and northern WA. In fact apart from a single boat that made it to WA landings on the continent are hardly happening at all (I remember a time when they were actually more common).


If, on the other hand, you are saying that he is playing on fears of too many people coming at great cost in a way that outsources our immigration program to people smugglers and the whim of global happenstance, then that is a very real concern.

No, I am not saying that. I am saying he is going much further and deliberately touching on unjustified paranoia about the consequences of the issue going beyond just the cost. Though even if he was just saying the above it would still be loopy paranoid nonsense since people smugglers can determine who we have to process, but do not determine who is a legitimate refugee.


Greg Sheridan is usually quite favourable to the ALP on foreign relations.

Greg Sheridan is usually a hysterical right-wing hack.

Now, would anyone capable of debating intelligently or at least of posting about chess once in a blue moon, care to defend Abbott's claim that this is a national emergency? If only Damodevo defends it then I take that as confirming it is false.

Ian Murray
26-07-2013, 12:35 PM
Greg Sheridan is usually quite favourable to the ALP on foreign relations. But... (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/work-or-fail-at-least-coalition-stepping-up/story-e6frg76f-1226685244393)
Sheridan works for News Ltd, which is not favourable to the ALP as a matter of course.

David Marr (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/22/captain-rudd-australia-depths-shame#start-of-comments) forces us to look into the mirror, with no credit to either party

Hobbes
26-07-2013, 01:49 PM
Sheridan works for News Ltd, which is not favourable to the ALP as a matter of course.

David Marr (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/22/captain-rudd-australia-depths-shame#start-of-comments) forces us to look into the mirror, with no credit to either party

Marr work(s/ed) for Fairfax and the Guardian, which are opposed to the Liberals as a matter of course, and only attack Labor from the Left. One might say that there is no credit for Marr in the article, which naturally is full of untruths and distortions, and lacks logic.

Also I am a bit confused. Ignoring Marr's adjectives and his emotive language (a bit of advice Ian, that is always necessary with Marr) he seems to be acknowledging that Howard stopped the boats, the drownings and the illegal immigrants - but claimed that the borders were not thereby more secure (huh?). He seems to concede that Rudd put the sugar back on the table - but thinks that whatever Brendan Nelson had to say about that at the time (a)was relevant and (b)means that when the policy failure became clear, Tony Abbott was not allowed to oppose it (huh?).


Another inaccuracy: "In the terms set by Abbott ... (silly emoting snipped) ..., the arrival of a single boat is a mark of government failure."

Set by Abbott? Here are Julia Gillard and Mark Latham in 2003:


ANOTHER boat on the way, another policy failure. (This) is a stark reminder that the Howard government policy is not working


And perhaps I didn't read the article carefully enough, but I could not tell what the Marr solution is. In the past, lefties with idealism and no concept of responsibility used to advocate open slather, I couldn't tell if (after so many drownings) that was still Marr's solution or not, so perhaps that is progress after all!

Desmond
26-07-2013, 07:29 PM
Immigration and PNG issue of Qanda for those who missed it. :)


iwjcisBA5vk

antichrist
26-07-2013, 09:32 PM
Damodeva, u are correct Iraq was breaking trading sanctions but what Howard failed to say was that OZ was the biggest sinner in this trade with wheat.

Damodevo
26-07-2013, 10:11 PM
That is not a normal definition. Cause and effect in "emergencies" where there is interplay between the actions of nations can often be argued endlessly. If there is a famine in some African country and the US could have stopped it by giving more foreign aid, or some other African country could have stopped it by assisting in the deposing of a dictator, that's a "national emergency" for the country that has the famine, not the country that caused the famine.

In the US there is an ongoing use of "national emergency" powers to deal with terrorist threats that disrupt "national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States". This is classified as a national emergency for the United States because the United States is significantly threatened by it.

Are you saying that our immigration policy is not our national responsibility? Determining who comes here and who doesn't? Given that we have lost control over who has come here and who has not at a rate of several thousand a year with a huge cost then that is an emergency.

There is no ambiguity on where the 'cause and effect' lies here. WE were the ones that changed our asylum seeker policy that caused them to come. In what way is it the responsibility of the source countries? Once they enter our waters it most certainly IS our responsibility. Those countries cannot prevent people from leaving.

You might say its their responsibility to improve the well being of their people but that ain't going to happen any time soon and people are drowning NOW.


Once again you show that in your case reading what the other person has posted carefully is not your strong suit, and indeed is probably a void suit. I wrote "Except that some of them at least [...]" (emphasis added) and nothing you write referring to them being "mostly" from elsewhere is logically capable of refuting that statement.

Then your point is moot. Here is the flip side of what you said; given that most are not fleeing persecution then they are dying for no good reason and thus we are responsible for their deaths.


Furthermore, your "mostly" is wrong anyway. The stats provided on the page you link to show that 2012 is the only year for which the combined percentage from Sri Lanka and Iran exceeded 50% and that only just. For 2013 those nations supplied a combined 44.7% with Sri Lankans outnumbered by Afghans.

And you don't have any proof the other 55% are fleeing war or persecution. E.g. the next two highest are Pakistan and Vietnam (1088 and 759 respectively). Which means more than half are coming from countries not at war. And even of those fleeing countries at war we have no idea whether they really are in danger especially when they dispose of their ID.


And finally it is not necessary for a country to be "at war" for minorities to be persecuted enough to have very good reason to leave.

And we have absolutely no idea whether that is the case.


Bob Carr knows full well that isn't true (http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jun/28/bob-carr/are-boat-people-economic-migrants/) and is involved in political posturing.

Why would he be doing that when he would have just as much interest to state the opposite. What he says undermines the whole moral case for the government's policy changes.



Not the whole country of course. What I'm referring to is a long-seated fear that numbers of "boat people" would become so large that the northern coast could not be defended against them and they would continually land on Australian shores, perhaps taking over parts of the NT and northern WA. In fact apart from a single boat that made it to WA landings on the continent are hardly happening at all (I remember a time when they were actually more common).

You are very disconnected from reality aren't you? I've never heard that worry raised by Aussies who are concerned on this. The major concern is that they don't want certain people of certain cultures coming here. Its a fair objection given the amount on welfare after 5 years or the crime rates amongst certain ethnicities/subcultures.


No, I am not saying that. I am saying he is going much further and deliberately touching on unjustified paranoia about the consequences of the issue going beyond just the cost.

It isn't 'unjustified paranoia' to want to determine who comes to your country or not. It is the 'who' that is coming and not some silly fear about invasion that you have dreamt up without a sceric of proof.



Now, would anyone capable of debating intelligently or at least of posting about chess once in a blue moon, care to defend Abbott's claim that this is a national emergency? If only Damodevo defends it then I take that as confirming it is false.

I'll take that as a 'i'm taking my ball and going home' type comment.

antichrist
27-07-2013, 08:28 AM
Well going back to the early lifetime of some posters here during the Holocaust, if the League of Nations or similar body decided that OZ being one of the few countries not being invaded, was going to have accept hundreds of thousand of refugees out of Europe for at least a decade would we lock the gates and let the refugees be gassed or would we let them in?

Kevin Bonham
27-07-2013, 01:49 PM
Are you saying that our immigration policy is not our national responsibility?

No; I am saying there is a difference between a national responsibility and a national emergency.


Given that we have lost control over who has come here and who has not at a rate of several thousand a year with a huge cost then that is an emergency.

The cost, while inconvenient, is nowhere near national emergency status. Claims like this make it sound like we have lost control over who comes to the Australian mainland at large and stays there, which is false. The fact is that whether or not we have control over who comes to our territorial outpost speck in the ocean Christmas Island for processing, we do have control over the fate of those who are processed, and they are processed either offshore or via onshore detention facilities occupying a trivial proportion of our land. People are not unilaterally deciding they will move to Australia and live at large in this country because they feel like it.


There is no ambiguity on where the 'cause and effect' lies here. WE were the ones that changed our asylum seeker policy that caused them to come. In what way is it the responsibility of the source countries? Once they enter our waters it most certainly IS our responsibility. Those countries cannot prevent people from leaving.

You might say its their responsibility to improve the well being of their people but that ain't going to happen any time soon and people are drowning NOW.

In the case of source countries in states of political unrest this is often not just a matter of "well being" but also a matter of the regimes in those countries. It is also a matter of the policies of other nations involved in military conflicts in them. Hence my comment that cause and effect is complex.

As for the drownings, people are choosing to take risks to try to get here. It is hard to credit that they are or should be completely ignorant about the possibility of dying at sea en route. It is hard to credit that they have a completely rosy view that there is no risk because they have been brainwashed by people-smugglers to the point of thinking they will be travelling on a luxury ocean liner. If they are taking those risks for purely economic reasons (which some apparently are, albeit apparently a minority) then why should we be getting all paternalistic about the risks involved in that choice, or believing it is all our fault? We don't force people to choose to attempt to come here.

(I'm not here saying that I necessarily support allowing people to seek asylum in Australia by boat. Indeed, ideally I support global solutions to the asylum-seeker problem that do not involve the idea that fleeing persecution automatically entitles you to move to a nation with a much higher standard of living. I am saying that when right-wingers argue that they don't support allowing it because people drown at sea, then that is generally not their real reason.)


Then your point is moot.

Ipse dixit and non sequitur.


Here is the flip side of what you said; given that most are not fleeing persecution then they are dying for no good reason and thus we are responsible for their deaths.

No, that is not the flip side since "most" is not the flip side of "some at least". And see above on responsibility.


And you don't have any proof the other 55% are fleeing war or persecution.

I don't need any. If you want to make a claim that most are not fleeing war or persecution then the burden is on you. The fact is that the strong majority of those processed are found to be legitimate refugees and eventually accepted. I am more inclined to trust the word of those required to process them under detailed and complicated standards as to whether they are legitimate or not, than yours.


Why would he be doing that when he would have just as much interest to state the opposite.

Because it is music to the ears of Western Sydney. There is a certain voter base out there, ironically in some cases consisting itself of former refugees, that wants to hear tough-on-refugee rhetoric from both parties. It also serves the government's new approach to be giving the impression that most of those coming here aren't legitimate so let's just send them to PNG. After all if most of them aren't legitimate, then that is highly likely to stop them. But if they are legitimate, it probably won't.


You are very disconnected from reality aren't you? I've never heard that worry raised by Aussies who are concerned on this.

Ooooh no, I have a right-wing ranter hiding under a pseudonym, who generally struggles to correctly comprehend what is put to him, accusing me of being "disconnected from reality" just because he is not aware of the long history of concern about actual foreign invasion from the north.

People (Hanson types excepted) generally don't say that stuff anymore because when it is said out loud it is all a bit laughable. But the fear is there and it's not that many decades back that it was a very big thing in Australian politics. It's still bubbling away beneath the surface and will be for some time to come.


The major concern is that they don't want certain people of certain cultures coming here. Its a fair objection given the amount on welfare after 5 years or the crime rates amongst certain ethnicities/subcultures.

Oh, there is a lot of this too, together with the general xenophobic fear that they might be terrorists. But "coming here" refers to being accepted and actually settled in the Australian community. It's not that end of it that's being beaten up as supposedly a "national emergency", it's the end where people attempt to come here and arrive at out facilities.


It isn't 'unjustified paranoia' to want to determine who comes to your country or not.

Again, you are mixing up the issues of coming to this country in the sense of travelling here for the purposes of processing, and coming to this country in the sense of being accepted as a legitimate refugee and allowed to live here. Abbott's "national emergency" claim is clearly in the former context and it is pointless to try to argue things from the latter context to attempt to justify it.


I'll take that as a 'i'm taking my ball and going home' type comment.

You can interpret it as delusionally as you like. What I am trying to do here is to determine whether Abbott's claim of a "national emergency" is capable of coherent rational defence or only yours.

antichrist
27-07-2013, 05:46 PM
(I'm not here saying that I necessarily support allowing people to seek asylum in Australia by boat. Indeed, ideally I support global solutions to the asylum-seeker problem that do not involve the idea that fleeing persecution automatically entitles you to move to a nation with a much higher standard of living. I am saying that when right-wingers argue that they don't support allowing it because people drown at sea, then that is generally not their real reason.)
AC
KB is spot on here. of course they dont. And any year 7 student could pick up their hypocrisy. They want to try please everyone by appealing to everyone and thinking the pop wont know the difference. The mushroom in the dark gambit.

Basil
28-07-2013, 03:57 AM
I am saying that when right-wingers argue that they don't support allowing it because people drown at sea, then that is generally not their real reason.
Agreed. However this is also the very primary prefacing cited by every Labor poli charged with highly embarrassing job of explaining their volte-face on their previous facile moralising on the issue.

I will note the Libs have been consistent on this issue for 10 years while Labor has moralised and played Twister with rhetoric and ideology to suit.

antichrist
28-07-2013, 12:01 PM
Agreed. However this is also the very primary prefacing cited by every Labor poli charged with highly embarrassing job of explaining their volte-face on their previous facile moralising on the issue.

I will note the Libs have been consistent on this issue for 10 years while Labor has moralised and played Twister with rhetoric and ideology to suit.
But the difference is that the Libs will walk over their watery graves to take political advantage over the bleeding hearts Laborites. That is the callousness that Abbot has sunk to compared to the humanitarian Mal Fraser

Rincewind
28-07-2013, 12:04 PM
But the difference is that the Libs will walk over their watery graves to take political advantage over the bleeding hearts Laborites. That is the callousness that Abbot has sunk to compared to the humanitarian Mal Fraser

I don't recall Fraser being all that humanitarian while in office. He certainly has become more human since leaving politics.

antichrist
28-07-2013, 12:16 PM
I don't recall Fraser being all that humanitarian while in office. He certainly has become more human since leaving politics.
He did let the Vietnamese in who whitlam denied due their anti -Labor sympathies, Vietnamese Baltics he called them. Cox anticommos voted antilaboor.

I hated him in office but appreciated him after Hawkers turn arounds in office

Basil
28-07-2013, 01:53 PM
But the difference is that the Libs will walk over their watery graves to take political advantage over the bleeding hearts Laborites. That is the callousness that Abbot has sunk to compared to the humanitarian Mal Fraser
So you accept the hypocisy of the left? What do you mean the Libs will walk over the watery graves?

antichrist
28-07-2013, 02:07 PM
So you accept the hypocisy of the left? What do you mean the Libs will walk over the watery graves?

The libs will fake concern for drowning boatpeople hitting Labor over head with it. When actually they are glad it occurs just so they can attack labor.

What hypocritical of left u refer to. Is different to jump back n forward with tablet without causing distaster?

antichrist
28-07-2013, 02:13 PM
Labor have forced to join race to bottom to help even up polls. Libs who are principled have resign over issue. Petro Georgeou whatever his name. [off topic content deleted - mod]

Kevin Bonham
28-07-2013, 03:35 PM
One Labor figure on Poll Bludger said that he would send all asylum seekers to Pluto if it stopped Abbott winning the election.

Rincewind
28-07-2013, 03:37 PM
He did let the Vietnamese in who whitlam denied due their anti -Labor sympathies, Vietnamese Baltics he called them. Cox anticommos voted antilaboor.

The hurdle for Asian immigration in the early 1970s was the White Australia policy. It was Whitlam who abolished that in 1974.

Desmond
28-07-2013, 03:39 PM
One Labor figure on Poll Bludger said that he would send all asylum seekers to Pluto if it stopped Abbott winning the election.
Probably safer than PNG.

antichrist
28-07-2013, 04:44 PM
The hurdle for Asian immigration in the early 1970s was the White Australia policy. It was Whitlam who abolished that in 1974.

For which Pres Marcos (bathroom killer) called Whitlam white Lamb because still did not let Pinoys in with any ease - took all their nurses whitlam did

Ian Murray
01-08-2013, 07:59 PM
Who are the big winners in the howling match between Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott over asylum seekers? The Army, tent companies - and ultimately, the Australian public, explains Ben Pobjie (http://newmatilda.com/2013/08/01/who-will-win-asylum-policy-manhood-test)

antichrist
01-08-2013, 08:34 PM
Who are the big winners in the howling match between Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott over asylum seekers? The Army, tent companies - and ultimately, the Australian public, explains Ben Pobjie (http://newmatilda.com/2013/08/01/who-will-win-asylum-policy-manhood-test)
Haven't you seen my analogy yesterday. Boats are for Abbott what redbaiting was for bob Menzies - election winner.

antichrist
04-08-2013, 06:54 PM
The hurdle for Asian immigration in the early 1970s was the White Australia policy. It was Whitlam who abolished that in 1974.
Holt was letting some Asian students in and McMahon let in hundreds of badly needed nurses from the Philippines. Whitlam let them stay here after completing studies.

Now we need tens of thousands of migrant care givers for our ageing baby boomers but the elephant in the room..... pinays have proven record of good kind patient care. They should obtain permanent residence after about 20 years of care giving!!

Basil
24-08-2013, 02:39 PM
Buying boats? WTF? Don't say Tones is thought-bubbling this close to the line!

antichrist
28-08-2013, 02:37 PM
The hurdle for Asian immigration in the early 1970s was the White Australia policy. It was Whitlam who abolished that in 1974.

now you are talking about Flash Al Grassby who was up for corruption for taking up the Griffith Mafia line in Parliament for Donald Mackay, missing MP. One of the lowest points in Oz politics, almost something the LIbs would do everyday