AusPol July: Less stable than the Something Awful forums

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > AusPol July: Less stable than the Something Awful forums

«‹›95 »

Nuclear Spy: Jun 10, 2008; feeling under?

Negligent posted:

Being desparate enough to break the law doesn't give their asylum claim more merit than people who do the right thing.

Being desperate enough to break international law doesn't allow the government to discredit genuine claims of asylum over those who do the right thing

# ? Jul 7, 2014 13:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 07:23

CrazyTolradi: Oct 2, 2011; It feels so good to be so bad.....at posting.

Negligent posted:

Australia's legit migration program isn't racist at all. You have an equal shot regardless of your nationality.

That's a load of bullshit, Americans and other "anglo" national backgrounds get preference easily when applying for working visas here. I've had several friends go through this, some from the US/Europe, some from places like (funnily enough) Sri Lanka and there's a certain bias there.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 13:31

Sparticle: Oct 7, 2012

If we are done arguing with influx here is some good news.

quote:

High Court injunction blocks handover of 153 asylum seekers to Sri Lanka

The High Court has granted an interim injunction to block the handover of 153 asylum seekers to Sri Lanka, just hours after the Government confirmed another vessel has been returned.

Refugee advocates seeking to protect the group of Tamil asylum seekers made an application to the High Court, which granted the injunction until tomorrow afternoon.

A spokesperson for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison says the "Government notes the matter is currently before the court and accordingly will be making no further comment".

Solicitor George Newhouse says he was shocked by revelations the group of 41 asylum seekers will face criminal charges after being returned to Sri Lanka after being processed at sea.

"That strengthens the urgency of court application because if this Government is putting those people at risk of criminal charges, imprisonment and torture - because that's what happens in Sri Lankan prisons - then these people need assistance urgently," he said.

He says the asylum seekers "claim that they are fleeing persecution and that they are risk of death, torture or significant harm".

"We argued that the asylum seekers are entitled to have their allegations - claims against the Sri Lankan government - heard and processed in accordance with the law," he said.

"We will be making the point to the court that the asylum seekers are entitled to have their claims for asylum processed in accordance with Australian law.

"The Minister can't simply intercept them in the night and 'disappear' them."

Mr Newhouse says 48 of the 153 asylum seekers on the boat, including women and children, were named in court.

"The others we've sought protection for even though we were unaware of their names," he said.

The interim injunction will be in place until tomorrow afternoon, when the matter is set to be heard in the High Court.

It is understood some of the asylum seekers fled Sri Lanka to refugee camps in India before boarding a boat to Australia.

The Tamil Refugee Council claims at least 11 people on that boat have been tortured by Sri Lanka's intelligence services, and says there must have been more people on the ship in a similar situation.

The boat was intercepted off Christmas Island more than a week ago, but Mr Morrison has refused to comment on its fate.
Returned asylum seekers face 'rigorous imprisonment'

After two weeks of silence, Mr Morrison on Monday confirmed 41 asylum seekers have been handed over to Sri Lanka's military.

Mr Morrison says the group of asylum seekers already returned to Sri Lanka were intercepted on a boat west of the Cocos Islands.

The 37 Sinhalese and four Tamils from Sri Lanka were scanned by teleconference at sea before being transferred to the Sri Lankan navy on Sunday.

The Government says one of the Sinhalese may have had a case for seeking asylum, but opted to be handed back to Sri Lanka after being told they would be sent to Manus Island or Nauru for offshore processing.

The asylum seekers, all men, were taken to the port of Galle today and handed over to the Criminal Investigation Division, which is an arm of the intelligence branch.

It is a crime to leave Sri Lanka without leaving by an official port, so people who are caught at sea and returned are often charged with illegal migration offences.

"They will be charged under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act," police spokesman Ajith Rohana told the Reuters news agency.

"The sentence for those who are proved to have left illegally is two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine."

Sri Lankan authorities will also be trying to establish if any of the men have any links to any militant groups, which officials say is why the intelligence department must screen them.

Leading refugee lawyer David Manne says it is hard to predict what will happen to them next.

"This is part of the problem that we've seen in Sri Lanka with people being essentially summarily expelled there without proper due process," he told the ABC's 7.30.

"It's a country where there is an extremely serious systematic abuse of human rights ongoing in the country against certain minority particularly, and it is often very difficult to precisely track the fate of a returned asylum seeker."

"There are profound concerns that [returning the asylum seekers] is not legal. That it is violating people's fundamental rights and putting people's lives at risk."
Legal scholars say transfer may have violated international law

Fifty-three legal scholars from 17 Australian universities say they are "profoundly concerned" the asylum seekers were subjected to "rapid and inadequate screening interviews at sea" before being returned to Sri Lanka.

In a statement, the academics say the Government's actions in returning the asylum seekers to their country of origin "raises a real risk of refoulement."

Refoulement is an international law term that refers to the involuntarily return of refugees to their country of origin in cases where they may face severe human rights abuse or persecution.

The scholars said returning the asylum seekers would breach Australia's obligations under international refugee and human rights law, including the 1951 Refugees Convention, 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

They also questioned the legality of holding the asylum seekers at sea.

"Holding asylum seekers on boats in this manner also amounts to incommunicado detention without judicial scrutiny," they said in a statement.

"We urgently call on the Australian Government to make public its legal justification for this operation."

Senator Hanson-Young has criticised the Government's screening process, which reportedly involved just four questions via teleconference.

"A telephone conference of four questions - really, if it wasn't so serious, if it wasn't about life and death, it'd be laughable," Senator Hanson-Young said.

Shadow minister for immigration Richard Marles has also questioned the operation.

"Australia's international obligations are reliant upon a credible processing system and we have deep concerns about how that could have been performed by video link at sea in a way which gave an individual assessment, when all the time the boat was steaming towards Sri Lanka," Mr Marles said.

Sri Lanka has not directly commented on whether Australia has acted lawfully.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/high-court-injunction-halts-handover-of-asylum-seekers/5579726

E: just noticed I was beaten by a few pages of influx postin'

Sparticle fucked around with this message at 13:36 on Jul 7, 2014

# ? Jul 7, 2014 13:32

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

Influx would have loved Judith Sloan's take on the current asylum seeker issues. All this talk about Tamils and boat people takes away from Australia's great and successful immigration program. Also her personal opinion is that she doesn't have one until the court rules on the matter
Ok I was wrong Splode. Help me :cry:

# ? Jul 7, 2014 13:33

Freudian Slip: Mar 10, 2007; "I'm an archivist. I'm archiving."

On a different topic - Michelle Grattan is a very nice lady

http://theconversation.com/co-payment-will-hit-harder-than-expected-sydney-university-study-finds-28871

quote:

The government�s proposed Medicare co-payment and its increase in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme threshold will send a bigger-than-anticipated price signal, according to a study by Sydney University general practice researchers.

If both policies were introduced, the average annual extra cost to a patient, which increases with age, would be A$36 for children up to $122 for people 65 and older.

A young family of four would expect to pay $170 in co-payments for GP visits and tests, plus $14 for medications � $184 more annually.

A self-funded retired couple without Commonwealth concession cards could expect to be up for an average of $189 in co-payments for GP visits and tests, plus $55 for medications � totalling $244 more.

An age pensioner couple with concession cards would pay an average $140 in co-payments for GP visits and tests plus $59 for medications � $199 extra.

The research comes as the Medicare co-payment faces defeat in the Senate with Clive Palmer reaffirming his opposition.

The researchers � Clare Bayram, Christopher Harrison, Graeme Miller and Helena Britt � are from the Family Medicine Research Centre at the Sydney School of Public Health. They used data from the Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health (BEACH) program which is a continuous national study of general practice activity. The researchers say they have been conservative in their assumptions.

They found that more than one-quarter of adult GP consultations involved at least one test, which would make for a minimum out-of-pocket cost for the consultation of $14 in co-payments. About 3% of adult GP consultations involved imaging and pathology � making for a minimum $21 in co-payments.

Different people use health services at different rates, with the average number of GP visits made by the Australian population who visited a GP in 2012-13 being 6.6. The rate increases substantially with age, from an average of 4.5 for children to 10.5 for people 65 and over. A similar age-related pattern applies for pathology services.

�Therefore, the introduction of co-payments will not have an equal impact across the population. It is the high users, usually the older, sicker people in our community who will be the most affected,� the report said.

The co-payment would change patterns of health service use, with different impacts for different patient groups .

�Compared with other OECD countries, Australia already has one of the highest levels of out-of-pocket health costs. Through introduction of the co-payments the government aims to �ensure health services are sustainable and used efficiently�. However there is no evidence that any modelling was performed to assess the effect of co-payments on deterring people from seeing a GP, or the flow on effect on hospital emergency department attendances.�

In 2012-13, 5.8% of people delayed or did not see a GP because of cost, and this was a greater barrier for those from disadvantaged areas.

�Discouraging people from using primary care health services flies in the face of all international evidence.

�It is likely that the increased costs due to these policies would deter more people from seeking early treatment or from taking necessary medications. This is a concern when areas in Australia already have 13% of their population delaying or not seeing a GP due to cost, and 15% doing the same for prescriptions.

�Overseas studies have shown that there is little evidence of health care care cost reduction from introducing co-payments. The evidence suggests that long term health costs will be higher due to patients deferring necessary care, resulting in increased hospitalisation and progression of disease,� the study said.

�International evidence overwhelmingly suggests that the most efficient, effective and equitable health systems have a strong primary care focus.

�We believe that if Australia is to maintain an efficient and equitable health care system, general practice requires investment, not reductions.�

# ? Jul 7, 2014 13:38

Tokamak: Dec 22, 2004

^^^
Did you chat about her archery skills? I hear she has a mean draw.

Oh god, she has gone into full on denial now and is turning into a literal mouthpiece for the government. I have no one around to turn off the show, I think I might need to call 000.

Edit: Oh thank god this is the end of the episode.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 13:38

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Sparticle posted:

If we are done arguing with influx here is some good news.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-07/high-court-injunction-halts-handover-of-asylum-seekers/5579726

E: just noticed I was beaten by a few pages of influx postin'

Really waiting to see what the actual argument is. It's so difficult to tell what's going on at the moment.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 13:44

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

I heard that some Jews were in positions of privilege in the third reich. Ergo not every Jewish person was persecuted. Ergo Jewish people should have applied for legal emigration with state authorities. Ergo any who make it out through non-legal means should be extradited back to the hands of the SS.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 13:45

Gough Suppressant: Nov 14, 2008

Hey TOML can the court demand habeas corpus and if the refugees are not produced hold those responsible for their detention(the minister?) in contempt?

# ? Jul 7, 2014 13:47

TheMostFrench: Jul 12, 2009; Stop for me, it's the claw!

Fun night reading and posting helpful links to FB. Giving people poo poo to bookmark is usually the most helpful thing in my experience, then just politely reminding them to check their bookmarks every once and a while will hopefully get people eventually reading about things when they are bored of answering asinine quizzes on buzz feed.

Some of the things I've been through so far:

Asylum statistics March 2013 quarter (from 2011-2013, helpful numbers from the government to put behind discussions).
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/asylum/_files/asylum-stats-march-quarter-2013.pdf

ASRC statistics page, contains overall information and is how I got to the above document ^
http://www.asrc.org.au/resources/statistics/

Going to read about the 457 skilled workers visa and other valid methods of country access since someone brought it up earlier.
http://www.immi.gov.au/Visas/Pages/457.aspx

The Refugee Council of Australia website
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-pub.php

The Refugee Week.org.au website with global refugee facts and statistics
http://www.refugeeweek.org.au/resources/stats.php

# ? Jul 7, 2014 13:58

Amethyst: Mar 28, 2004; I CANNOT HELP BUT MAKE THE DCSS THREAD A FETID SWAMP OF UNFUN POSTING
plz notice me trunk-senpai

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/07/us-sri-lanka-australia-idUSKBN0FC00N20140707

quote:

Sri Lanka asylum seekers returned by Australia face 'rigorous imprisonment'

Forty-one Sri Lankan asylum seekers returned by Australia are to be charged with leaving the country illegally and those found guilty face "rigorous imprisonment", police said on Monday, fuelling concerns about Australian policy and rights abuses in Sri Lanka.

Australia said the 41 were transferred to Sri Lankan authorities at sea on Sunday, but declined to comment on a second boat reported to be carrying an additional 153, saying only that it was not currently in Australian waters.

Australian border patrol personnel intercepted the first vessel carrying 41 Sri Lankans west of the remote Cocos Islands last week, after they were suspected of entering Australian waters illegally.

Australia declined to give details of how the group was transported back to the site of the transfer, which Australia said was off the eastern Sri Lankan port of Batticaloa.

The Sri Lankan navy handed the group to the police and police spokesman Ajith Rohana said they would be produced before a court in the southwestern port of Galle. He did not say when.

"Everybody will be produced before the Galle magistrate," he told Reuters. "They will be charged under the Immigrants and Emigrants Act. The sentence for those proved to have left illegally is two years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

Feel proud, everyone.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:04

Those On My Left: Jun 25, 2010

Gough Suppressant posted:

Hey TOML can the court demand habeas corpus and if the refugees are not produced hold those responsible for their detention(the minister?) in contempt?

It's just way too early to know exactly what's going on. Pretty sure that the High Court can order habeas corpus, but I don't think that's what the applicants are after. And yes, Ministers who disobey a High Court order can be held in contempt, although I doubt it has ever happened. We will know more tomorrow. I suspect the first order of business will be to find out whether the Tamils are still in Australian custody or have already been handed over.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:10

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23047162

quote:

In a desolate grove of palmyra trees, I meet Dilip, 21, a Tamil man.

Last September he pawned his grandmother's jewels to pay $9,000 (�5,800) to an agent. He got into a small boat with 100 other men to escape Sri Lanka.
...
Economic problems are a major factor driving Sri Lankans - including Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims - into the hands of the smugglers.

Despite visible reconstruction work in mainly Tamil Batticaloa - a brand new bridge across the lagoon and bulldozers working on new projects - there are not nearly enough jobs.

"Most are going because of their debts here. The war has destroyed the economy, and infrastructure is destroyed, especially agriculture and fisheries," the head of an NGO consortium, Varunakulasingham Kamaldhas, told the BBC.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:10

Nuclear Spy: Jun 10, 2008; feeling under?

TheMostFrench posted:

Fun night reading and posting helpful links to FB. Giving people poo poo to bookmark is usually the most helpful thing in my experience, then just politely reminding them to check their bookmarks every once and a while will hopefully get people eventually reading about things when they are bored of answering asinine quizzes on buzz feed.

Some of the things I've been through so far:

I have added these links to the Asylum seekers page on the AusPol wiki for future reference, thanks!

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:11

RC Bandit: Sep 7, 2012; Hanson: It's Time; Grimey Drawer

Negligent posted:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23047162

Even more reason why they shouldn't be turned back.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:17

thatbastardken: Apr 23, 2010; A contract signed by a minor is not binding!

Negligent posted:

"Most are going because of their debts here. The war has destroyed the economy, and infrastructure is destroyed, especially agriculture and fisheries," the head of an NGO consortium, Varunakulasingham Kamaldhas, told the BBC.

hmm yes the unsourced anecdote of this wealthy executive is certainly the proof needed to change my mind about the persecution of the Tamil people.

you loving idiot.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:18

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

median monthly household income in sri lanka 30,400 rs (~$250)

http://www.statistics.gov.lk/HIES/HIES201213BuletinEng.pdf

sum paid to criminals to get on a boat $9,000

sure as gently caress seems pretty wealthy compared to most people

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:25

Bald Stalin: Jul 11, 2004; Our posts

My mum, the negative gearing boomer that votes Greens, says she and my dad have private health insurance so as not to burden the public system. Is she helping or hindering socialized medicine in Australia by doing this?

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:25

Serrath: Mar 17, 2005; I have nothing of value to contribute; Ham Wrangler

Negligent posted:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23047162

How do you square the point you're trying to make with the fact that, upon investigation, ~85% of Tamil refugees are found to be "genuine" refugees? Like, I get that you have this newspaper article and the sources within but to conclude that there is a large proportion of economic refugees among the refugees currently arriving in Australia requires you to ignore the findings of all the government agencies whose job it is to investigate the veracity of these claims.

I don't know why you keep beating on the economic migrants drum; the facts don't actually support the notion that anything but a very tiny minority of refugees are fleeing to Australia to escape economic hardship and even a courtesy google search can show you this if you looked...

**edit** I'm getting sucked into arguing on a point that really shouldn't factor into the debate anyway. You can still be wealthy and be in fear for your life; determinations about who and who isn't a refugee doesn't take into account whether or not they're rich, its determined on whether or not they have a reasonable fear of death or injury if they return.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:27

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

same source, the BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28193492

quote:

The government says only four of those returned on Sunday were Tamils.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:28

malmal: Jan 28, 2009

Amethyst posted:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/07/us-sri-lanka-australia-idUSKBN0FC00N20140707

Feel proud, everyone.

The comments, :negative:

CountryPride wrote:
Even animals respect other animals territory but illegals are worse than animals.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:31

Serrath: Mar 17, 2005; I have nothing of value to contribute; Ham Wrangler

Negligent posted:

same source, the BBC

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28193492

??? all it says was that 4 of the people returned were Tamil people. It says nothing about the veracity of their claims for refugee status. My point was that ~85% of applicants are found to be genuine refugees which contradicts the point you seem to be trying to make that, broadly, refugees are made up of a large proportion of economic migrants fleeing poverty rather than risk of injury.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:31

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Different source, the former foreign minister

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/why-well-fight-smugglers/story-fni0cwl5-1226675268230?nk=c93490f3820bb8ddc1e141919cc6f88d

quote:

I stand by my comments last week: "There have been some boats where 100 per cent of (passengers) have been people who are fleeing countries where they are the majority ethnic and religious group ... their motivations are altogether economic." Some. Not all.

For example, on May 31 a boat carrying 71 Sri Lankans arrived off Christmas Island. Of 63 passengers subject to Australia's enhanced screening process, all were screened out and will be returned to Sri Lanka. Similarly, the boat Chejan arrived from Sri Lanka in October 2012 carrying 15 Sri Lankans, all of whom were sent back. Most admitted coming here to work.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:32

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

Another gem I turned up with a cursory google:

Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa

so it is correct so say that wealthy people pay criminals large amounts of money to gain illegal entry to australia

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:35

Serrath: Mar 17, 2005; I have nothing of value to contribute; Ham Wrangler

Negligent posted:

Different source, the former foreign minister

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/why-well-fight-smugglers/story-fni0cwl5-1226675268230?nk=c93490f3820bb8ddc1e141919cc6f88d

You're quoting quotes from politicians and ministers, I don't really understand how you can weight evidence like this against the actual statistics released by the department of immigration. Like, you can humm and haww and link quotes from all sorts of terrible people who have formed all sorts of terrible opinions but it doesn't really provide any sort of argument against the fact that the department of immigration reports that 85% of refugees arriving in Australia are reviewed and found to have reasonable cause to believe they will suffer harm or death if they return to their country.

The personal experience and anecdotes of this foreign minister don't change this fact.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:38

malmal: Jan 28, 2009

Negligent posted:

Another gem I turned up with a cursory google:

Scott Morrison correct on 'illegal entry' of people without a visa

so it is correct so say that wealthy people pay criminals large amounts of money to gain illegal entry to australia

Did you even read what you linked?

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:40

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

PREPARE TO poo poo BLOOD

This is up on the libs facebook page RIGHT NOW.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:41

Serrath: Mar 17, 2005; I have nothing of value to contribute; Ham Wrangler

Negligent posted:

so it is correct so say that wealthy people pay criminals large amounts of money to gain illegal entry to australia

You're conflating two points. It's pointless to argue about the financial capacity of refugees entering Australia because it's irrelevant to what we're talking about. Just because someone can afford a boat doesn't mean that they're not escaping some grievous harm and I'll just keep returning to the point that 85% of applicants are found to be escaping exactly this sort of harm. Pulling out the amount of money they pay as some kind of masterful counterstroke completely overlooks this fact... many of the vietnamese refugees who came to Australia during the war were among the wealthiest and most educated citizens because they represented the only group of people who had the means to flee. They still had a rational fear of being killed because they happened to belong to the wrong political party or ethnic group and they were allowed in, independent of their wealth, status, or education.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:42

Arcanen: Dec 19, 2005

d3rt posted:

My mum, the negative gearing boomer that votes Greens, says she and my dad have private health insurance so as not to burden the public system. Is she helping or hindering socialized medicine in Australia by doing this?

Not an expert in any way, but one would assuming hindering. Socialized medicine works because so many people are with the same "provider" i.e. the government, that collective bargaining can be performed on behalf of all those people. Health companies don't want to miss out on the (absolutely massive) contracts available and so compete with each other much more rigorously than they do for private insurance contracts. This is a reason why health insurance in some countries (e.g. the US) is so expensive despite so much per capita spending; everyone pays a massive amount, but each insurance provider is so small that they can't leverage their customer base for cheaper contracts (if they were so inclined). So your parents hinder (of course, two people is negligible) socialized medicine because they lessen the chips the government has the play in order to reduce health costs for everyone.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:43

Konomex: Oct 25, 2010; a whiteman who has some authority over others, who not only hasn't raped anyone, or stared at them creepily...

Is there a law that's been broken here? In giving 41 asylum seekers back to a government that will imprison and torture them? I feel that should be illegal and the minister for immigration should be prosecuted along with the Australian officers that did the actual act.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:48

duck monster: Dec 15, 2004

Actually being financially well off actually increases the odds of being hunted in a warzone.

Take an Afghan Hazara village. Chances are the mayor of the village is going to be relatively well to do compared to the regular joes in the village. He's the boss, he gets the dough. Its how it works everywhere.

So when the Taliban come rolling in , chances are they really dont give a gently caress what Abdul the goat herder thinks about them, unless of course Abdul wants to join or abdul is spying for the yanks. But they DO care what the mayor thinks because its his town. The mayor is the guy who decides if they are helping the yanks or hiding the taliban. As a result if its a hostile village they are going to sweep in and shoot the gently caress out of the mayor, and whoever the rich guys are that really run the town.

And so the first thing the mayor is going to do is bundle his oldest son onto the first ship outa dodge and aim for the farthest away country they can think of. The lad will in theory go there, and if its safe, he'll get the rest of the family over to the magical land of australia where girls wear bikinis on the beach, men fight crocodiles in cork hats, and the taliban are nowhere to be seen.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:48

hooman: Oct 11, 2007; This guy seems legit.; Fun Shoe

Actually if you are rich and in Sri Lanka, why the gently caress would you leave? What possible gain is there for you to flee the country if you're rich as gently caress there and could come to Australia and be a dirt poor refugee who isn't allowed to work on their bridging visa.

Like why the gently caress are they leaving if they're so drat rich there?

I mean fleeing if you aren't persecuted...

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:50

Serrath: Mar 17, 2005; I have nothing of value to contribute; Ham Wrangler

duck monster posted:

Actually being financially well off actually increases the odds of being hunted in a warzone.

I was going to make the exact same point but I didn't want to muddy the debate further by making more points than I needed to in order to say what I want to say... But you're right, Nazi germany is a great example, the first Jews to flee were the wealthiest, the bankers, jewellers, collectors or independently rich, driven out due to the Nazi's tenancy to confiscate property. Unfortunately, fleeing to an anti-Semitic Europe, for whom the "wealthy" Jew was already a stereotype, the fleeing wealthy didn't endear much sympathy and were often turned back or forced to sell their possessions in order to make it out.

There's a lot of morals you can draw from that story and apply to the current situation...

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:53

Negligent: Aug 20, 2013; Its just lovely here this time of year.

i'm looking at the point prior to being assessed as a refugee under australian law.

there should be fairness in who has a chance to make their claim. the best system that i can see from this perspective is to accept people who have been assessed as genuine refugees from the UNHCR. the other way is to provide subsidised passage to everyone and assess all the claims.

opening up an alternative path to a permanent residency visa that is only accessible if you have portable wealth or access to credit and happen to know the wrong kind of people sucks, especially if you are one of the people sitting with only the clothes on your back in a UNHCR camp.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 14:55

XyloJW: Jul 23, 2007

Heads up, but that's not influx, pretty sure I've told you guys that before. Someone just bought him that title because he argued something stupid last year.

It's annoying because I get a report every once in a while saying "influx dodging permaban" and I almost ignored this derail because several of the reports were about him being influx, so yeah.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 15:00

Serrath: Mar 17, 2005; I have nothing of value to contribute; Ham Wrangler

Negligent posted:

i'm looking at the point prior to being assessed as a refugee under australian law.

there should be fairness in who has a chance to make their claim. the best system that i can see from this perspective is to accept people who have been assessed as genuine refugees from the UNHCR. the other way is to provide subsidised passage to everyone and assess all the claims.

opening up an alternative path to a permanent residency visa that is only accessible if you have portable wealth or access to credit and happen to know the wrong kind of people sucks, especially if you are one of the people sitting with only the clothes on your back in a UNHCR camp.

The problem with this is that, whether I agree with you or not, we have to acknowledge that there are people washing up the shores now, 85% of whom risk death or injury if they're returned. I am 100% in favour of having a really honest intellectual debate about how we can make the process of making an application more equitable, whether the process means opening up Australian embassies so people can apply there, running offices in other countries or even ferrying them here somehow so they can make their claims, however we want to get it done.

It screams of unimaginable cruelty and shortsightedness, though, to deny those who <are> taking the trip now a chance to have their own claims assessed on their merits and become resettled within Australia. That's why I hate the queue jumper debate; whether the queue exists or not (hint: it doesn't), it shouldn't matter because human beings who are refugees are coming here in the manner they're coming here and we have a responsibility to assess their claims and resettle those who are found to be refugees. Anything less would be in contravention of treaties we've signed and general ethical principals of human rights.

So yes, if you want to have a debate about the routes of application, have at it. It's unfair to expect people who are genuine refugees and who can make it to our shores to have to wait until we've resolved this debate, however.

**edit** dammit, probated. Really felt like I was making a difference here...

# ? Jul 7, 2014 15:01

AVeryLargeRadish: Aug 19, 2011; I LITERALLY DON'T KNOW HOW TO NOT BE A WEIRD SEXUAL CREEP ABOUT PREPUBESCENT ANIME GIRLS, READ ALL ABOUT IT HERE!!!

Konomex posted:

Is there a law that's been broken here? In giving 41 asylum seekers back to a government that will imprison and torture them? I feel that should be illegal and the minister for immigration should be prosecuted along with the Australian officers that did the actual act.

Well, yes, it is illegal under international law. But the Minister for Immigration and other government officials and officers involved in this are important, powerful people and Australian citizens while the asylum seekers are unimportant, weak and foreign. In fact these asylum seekers are very foreign and might damage the pristine fabric of Australia's unique culture. In any case how could one justify the strong being harmed for the sake of the weak? It's leftism gone mad I say! :colbert:

# ? Jul 7, 2014 15:08

CrazyTolradi: Oct 2, 2011; It feels so good to be so bad.....at posting.

Negligent posted:

median monthly household income in sri lanka 30,400 rs (~$250)

http://www.statistics.gov.lk/HIES/HIES201213BuletinEng.pdf

sum paid to criminals to get on a boat $9,000

sure as gently caress seems pretty wealthy compared to most people

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

Dude, you're a loving troll and an idiot. A good friend of mine grew up in Romania during the days of the Communist party and while people were poor as poo poo, they had family heirlooms worth thousands but couldn't sell them for squat because they were luxury items and no one had money to actually pay for them. You'll find that family heirlooms like that are often handed down in countries like Sri Lanka and Indian, as well as many Asian countries, and are sold only because they have literally no other option.

Seriously, come back when you've lived in a situation where you face torture and death because of your ethnic background, then come here and talk about how it's all just wanting to be an economic migrant.

EDIT: It's hard for us to understand family heirlooms in Australia so much because the baby boomers hocked anything of value off to either pay for holidays or invest in property.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 15:15

Konomex: Oct 25, 2010; a whiteman who has some authority over others, who not only hasn't raped anyone, or stared at them creepily...

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Well, yes, it is illegal under international law. But the Minister for Immigration and other government officials and officers involved in this are important, powerful people and Australian citizens while the asylum seekers are unimportant, weak and foreign. In fact these asylum seekers are very foreign and might damage the pristine fabric of Australia's unique culture. In any case how could one justify the strong being harmed for the sake of the weak? It's leftism gone mad I say!

Putting aside our flaunting of international treaties. Have any of those laws been passed as bills into domestic law? Or is it all pinky swears?

# ? Jul 7, 2014 17:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 9, 2024 07:23

CrazyTolradi: Oct 2, 2011; It feels so good to be so bad.....at posting.

Konomex posted:

Putting aside our flaunting of international treaties. Have any of those laws been passed as bills into domestic law? Or is it all pinky swears?

At the very least, it gives the impressions that we only keep to any agreement we make when it suits us, thus we're untrustworthy and anytihng we agree to cannot be taken at face value. How could Australia be any different under a man who point blank admitted you can't trust anything he says unless it's written down, and even then. This is LNP mentality we're talking here, where laws are only valid when they want them to be and everyone else should just ignore it if they're told to do so. They won't let a few pesky international treaties stand in their way as they war on the sick, poor and disadvantaged.

# ? Jul 7, 2014 23:50

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > AusPol July: Less stable than the Something Awful forums

«‹›95 »