Auspol: Not with a bang but with a whisper

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Auspol: Not with a bang but with a whisper

«‹›87 »

drunkill: Sep 25, 2007; me @ ur posting; Fallen Rib

Amethyst posted:

This is incredible

https://foragerfunds.com/bristlemouth/dick-smith-is-the-greatest-private-equity-heist-of-all-time/

'capital raiding'

There was a documentary made about that: https://vimeo.com/111458975

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 5, 2024 21:59

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Frogmanv2 posted:

Australia doesnt allow anyone with a boat to just rock up and gain access and that noone is suggesting that. Not one person. If an asylum seeker is deemed to be a refugee, then they should have access. If not, they can go home.

What bit of that do you not understand?

What about captain cook?

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:18

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

Seagull posted:

it was shocking to learn that the only thing that's literally infinite in our universe was refugees but my guess of dark matter was close imo

No, you're being deliberately obtuse, what he means is that if you were to remove limits on the number of asylum seekers being processed you would have...potentially un-limited refugees? :shrug:

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:20

Zahki: Nov 7, 2004

Seagull posted:

it was shocking to learn that the only thing that's literally infinite in our universe was refugees but my guess of dark matter was close imo

Hey it's not as if Germany made a 'come one come all' offer this year and was flooded with a number of refugees it has no hope of being able to resettle successfully. The idea that an invitation to settle anyone who makes it to your borders might spur a movement of refugees the host country can't handle is just theory, surely if we've been taking 6000 per year consistently we can bump that up to 12,000 or 18,000 year with no negative effects for the country or the refugees we're trying to help, no siree.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:20

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Oh no some fuckstain who masturbates furiously to the idea of children committing self harm thinks poorly of me whatever should I do

I unironically hope you get hit by a bus

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:22

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Zahki posted:

Hey it's not as if Germany made a 'come one come all' offer this year and was flooded with a number of refugees it has no hope of being able to resettle successfully. The idea that an invitation to settle anyone who makes it to your borders might spur a movement of refugees the host country can't handle is just theory, surely if we've been taking 6000 per year consistently we can bump that up to 12,000 or 18,000 year with no negative effects for the country or the refugees we're trying to help, no siree.

Have you got any actual reasoning behind your 6000 as the absolute maximum number of refugees that the country can take without the whole continent sinking into the pacific beyond that being the amount you think we take now?

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:24

CATTASTIC: Mar 31, 2010; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I wonder what the difference between Germany and Australia could be that would make it easier to travel to one but not the other.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:27

birdstrike: Oct 30, 2008; i;m gay

clearly if you're rich enough to pay a people smuggler you're rich enough to be a warlord and not have to leave in the first place

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:27

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

QUACKTASTIC posted:

I wonder what the difference between Germany and Australia could be that would make it easier to travel to one but not the other.

Angela Merkel's feminine weakness

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:29

Jintor: May 19, 2014

on the other hand we could toss them in a camp instead where no harm will occur at all as is well known. any harm occurring is of course a result of biased reporting by leftie political journo scum who hate narauan sovereignty.

people aren't necessarily arguing against limits, but when it actively costs less to resettle refugees than it does to imprison them, and imprisonment has its own glaring host of negative effects for refugees, and it's still not bloody working, you might consider rethinking that policy

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:30

CATTASTIC: Mar 31, 2010; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Imagine the water displacement unlimited refugees on unlimited boats would cause, most of the coastal areas would be under water.
Property prices are high enough already imo.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:30

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

QUACKTASTIC posted:

Imagine the water displacement unlimited refugees on unlimited boats would cause, most of the coastal areas would be under water.
Property prices are high enough already imo.

If Tony stopped the boats then why is Perth still sinking then

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:31

Seagull: Oct 9, 2012; give me a chip

Zahki posted:

Hey it's not as if Germany made a 'come one come all' offer this year and was flooded with a number of refugees it has no hope of being able to resettle successfully. The idea that an invitation to settle anyone who makes it to your borders might spur a movement of refugees the host country can't handle is just theory, surely if we've been taking 6000 per year consistently we can bump that up to 12,000 or 18,000 year with no negative effects for the country or the refugees we're trying to help, no siree.

so what you're saying is other nations' failing in not offering amnesty to people fleeing war zones has lead to germany having to take upon itself a greater burden than it should?

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:34

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Imagine believing that a government could make up lies regarding the at sea interception of refugees that would be an utterly unprecedented event in at least 14 years of Australian history

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:34

Seagull: Oct 9, 2012; give me a chip

i'm glad that together we've managed to reach the conclusion that australia, actually, is bad

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:34

Zahki: Nov 7, 2004

Solemn Sloth posted:

Have you got any actual reasoning behind your 6000 as the absolute maximum number of refugees that the country can take without the whole continent sinking into the pacific beyond that being the amount you think we take now?

Answered this on the previous page.

"The refugee quota has remained fairly stable at around ~6000 for a decade, which is a pretty good indication of how many people we have the capability of settling here on an annual basis."

I'm assuming that we're taking as many refugees as the government believes can be successfully settled here per year. If the number is stable then it's a safe assumption they have the resources to settle around 6000 refugees per year. I don't know why you're attacking my number when you've provided nothing to indicate that the government has the ability to settle significantly more people per year but aren't doing it because of reasons. It really seems you haven't thought much about what it actually means to settle people here apart from just allowing them into the country. It takes resources, it takes manpower, it takes money. You can't just dump them in shanty towns and dust your hands off. Your position is wishy washy. You want to settle everyone who arrives by boat and is deemed to be a refugee? What if 20,000 people arrive by boat next year? Clearly there needs to be a limit on how many refugees we take to maximise the outcomes of the ones we do. There is absolutely no point in taking refugees if they're going to be living in ghettos because we can't give them housing, can't find them jobs and can't provide the access to services they need to plant their feet.

There needs to be a level of pragmatism behind policy and the idea that we should accept all comers if they're deemed to be refugees is based on emotions and not what the actual capability we have is. In a world where Australia has infinite resources, sure burn as much money as you want on settling people here. Until then we need to work within limits and unless you want to explain in detail how you propose that we take in a potentially much larger number of refugees than we have the capacity to deal with without being able to plan for how many will arrive from year to year can we just admit that the idea is simply not based in the real world.

quote:

so what you're saying is other nations' failing in not offering amnesty to people fleeing war zones has lead to germany having to take upon itself a greater burden than it should?

Are you suggesting that there is a level of burden Germany shouldn't take upon itself? Shame on you. It's obvious they should continue taking in every single person who crosses their border. There will be no negative consequences from doing so apparently.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:44

WhiskeyWhiskers: Oct 14, 2013; "هذا ليس عادلاً."
"هذا ليس عادلاً على الإطلاق."
"كان هناك وقت الآن."
(السياق الخفي: للقراءة)

Seagull posted:

i'm glad that together we've managed to reach the conclusion that australia, actually, is bad

Not bad enough to stop the boats completely though. Maybe we should start random shellings?

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:45

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

That story about Perth sinking made me think of this picture.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:49

EvilElmo: May 10, 2009

Having not read 'The Economist' before, is it any good?

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:51

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

open24hours posted:

That story about Perth sinking made me think of this picture.

Some areas of inland Australia lost feet of soil in the first couple of decades that cattle were introduced but this is fuckin wild

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:55

CATTASTIC: Mar 31, 2010; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

What do you expect when the miners dig up all our rocks and sell them to other countries?
The country is deflating.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:57

Milkfred E. Moore: Aug 27, 2006; 'It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.'

Negligent posted:

23, 117, 89, 110, 403, 104, 1*

The numbers must be wrong!!! 1111

FOUND CHIEF

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:57

Seagull: Oct 9, 2012; give me a chip

Zahki posted:

Are you suggesting that there is a level of burden Germany shouldn't take upon itself? Shame on you. It's obvious they should continue taking in every single person who crosses their border. There will be no negative consequences from doing so apparently.

oh okay i was asking if that was what you thought but if this is actually it that's cool, agreed

# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:58

open24hours: Jan 7, 2001

Solemn Sloth posted:

Some areas of inland Australia lost feet of soil in the first couple of decades that cattle were introduced but this is fuckin wild

There are some pretty impressive pictures of that too.

http://nla.gov.au/nla.pic-vn4925914

# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:00

CATTASTIC: Mar 31, 2010; ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Man that cow is hosed up

# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:06

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

Zahki posted:

Answered this on the previous page.

"The refugee quota has remained fairly stable at around ~6000 for a decade, which is a pretty good indication of how many people we have the capability of settling here on an annual basis."

I'm assuming that we're taking as many refugees as the government believes can be successfully settled here per year. If the number is stable then it's a safe assumption they have the resources to settle around 6000 refugees per year. I don't know why you're attacking my number when you've provided nothing to indicate that the government has the ability to settle significantly more people per year but aren't doing it because of reasons. It really seems you haven't thought much about what it actually means to settle people here apart from just allowing them into the country. It takes resources, it takes manpower, it takes money. You can't just dump them in shanty towns and dust your hands off. Your position is wishy washy. You want to settle everyone who arrives by boat and is deemed to be a refugee? What if 20,000 people arrive by boat next year? Clearly there needs to be a limit on how many refugees we take to maximise the outcomes of the ones we do. There is absolutely no point in taking refugees if they're going to be living in ghettos because we can't give them housing, can't find them jobs and can't provide the access to services they need to plant their feet.

There needs to be a level of pragmatism behind policy and the idea that we should accept all comers if they're deemed to be refugees is based on emotions and not what the actual capability we have is. In a world where Australia has infinite resources, sure burn as much money as you want on settling people here. Until then we need to work within limits and unless you want to explain in detail how you propose that we take in a potentially much larger number of refugees than we have the capacity to deal with without being able to plan for how many will arrive from year to year can we just admit that the idea is simply not based in the real world.

Are you suggesting that there is a level of burden Germany shouldn't take upon itself? Shame on you. It's obvious they should continue taking in every single person who crosses their border. There will be no negative consequences from doing so apparently.

I mean our refugee intake as a percentage of migration is at historic lows and an expert panel recommended we could double it immediately with a view to quadrupling it after a trial period but they probably just made that poo poo up

# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:07

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN: Jun 26, 2009

Solemn Sloth posted:

I mean our refugee intake as a percentage of migration is at historic lows and an expert panel recommended we could double it immediately with a view to quadrupling it after a trial period but they probably just made that poo poo up

I find this very hard to accept. No, I believe I will have to deduce the correct number myself from first principles using what feels about right.

E: Ok. If it costs $400 a day to incarcerate people in maximum security on the australian mainland and $2000 a day to incarcerate people on naru then why don't we- nope lost it.

Furthermore I'm also concerned about the negative affects settled refugees will suffer from being settled?

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN fucked around with this message at 12:31 on Oct 29, 2015

# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:19

freebooter: Jul 7, 2009

Zahki posted:

I'm assuming that we're taking as many refugees as the government believes can be successfully settled here per year. If the number is stable then it's a safe assumption they have the resources to settle around 6000 refugees per year. I don't know why you're attacking my number when you've provided nothing to indicate that the government has the ability to settle significantly more people per year but aren't doing it because of reasons.

Have you not being paying attention to the last 15 years of hysterical public debate in this country, or what?

Our refugee policy has nothing to do with statistics, numbers or "successful settlement." It has everything to do with pandering to racist fears and exploiting a convenient scapegoat.

6,000 is the number the government resettles as lip service to the international community and left-wing voters here in Australia. 6,000 a year is 500 a month or 100 each in Perth, Adelaide, Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. It is a piddling number. General immigration in 2013-14 was 212,000.

A fabulously wealthy country with a population of 22 million people is absolutely capable of resettling more than 6,000 refugees a year and the fact that you think our politicians have arrived at this figure after wise, unbiased consideration is pathetic.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:24

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Zahki posted:

So you think we should settle a potentially unlimited number of refugees here if they arrive by boat. Probably not a good idea.

It really is a good idea. Refugees are a net gain for our country, no matter what complete morons like you think. They bring new food, new art, new ideas, new business opportunites, an increase in GDP and a whole shitload of of people who are greatful for the opportunity to contribute to a place that has literally saved their lives.

Of course, it would require a bit of support while they get back on their feet, but the cost of that would be completely insignificant when compared to the cost of funding concentration camps on a tropical hellhole and ensuring significant mental issues, which would then require more money to fix, and take longer for them to become productive members of society.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:30

The Before Times: Mar 8, 2014; Once upon a time, I would have thrown you halfway to the moon for a crack like that.

p.s. our offshore detention scheme costs upwards of $5 billion per year. A moderately strict onshore/community processing scheme, even assuming asylum seekers will continue arriving in numbers similar to 2009, would only cost like $500mil.

e: http://www.julianburnside.com.au/sir-harry-gibbs-lecture-2015/

please read this if you think our current policy is anything short of torture.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:38

Solemn Sloth: Jul 11, 2015; Baby you can shout at me,
But you can't need my eyes.

You can't just plop out a kid and have them work from day one, they require years of support before they become productive members of society. I just don't see how Australia can afford more than 6000 births a year

# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:40

The Before Times: Mar 8, 2014; Once upon a time, I would have thrown you halfway to the moon for a crack like that.

quote:

A family arrived in this country from Iran in early 2001. They were members of a religious minority who have been traditionally oppressed. They are regarded as unclean by the religious majority.

The family fled after a shocking episode in which one of their daughters suffered grievously and the authorities offered no help whatever. They arrived in Australia and ended up in a desert camp. There, over the next 14 months, the condition of the family deteriorated inexorably.

Mother and father, eleven-year-old daughter, seven-year-old daughter, all gradually getting worse and worse. But especially the eleven-year old. She had completely fallen apart. A psychiatrist in Adelaide became aware of the problem and went to Woomera to speak to the family. He wrote a report in which, among other things, he said of the child:

She refuses to engage in self-care activities such as brushing her teeth. She has problems with sleeping; tosses and turns at night; grinds her teeth; suffers from nightmares. She has been scratching herself constantly. She doesn�t eat her breakfast and other meals and throws her food in the bin. She is preoccupied constantly with death, saying �do not bury me here in the camp. Bury me back in Iran with grandmother and grandfather�.

She carried a cloth doll, the face of which she had coloured in blue pencil. When asked in the interview if she�d like to draw a picture, she drew a picture of a bird in a cage with tears falling and a padlock on the door. She said she was the bird.

After a number of pages to similar effect the psychatrist observed:

It is my professional opinion that to delay action on this matter will only result in further harm to this child and her family. The trauma and personal suffering already endured by them has been beyond the capacity of any human being.

The report urged that the family be transferred from the desert camp to a metropolitan camp where at least they would get proper clinical attention which the eleven-year-old desperately needed. Back then, if a detainee in Woomera was in extreme need of psychiatric help, they would be able to see the visiting psychiatrist about once every six months.

The Immigration Department moved the family to Maribyrnong Detention Centre in the western suburbs of Melbourne. Although the reason for moving them was that the 11-year-old girl needed daily psychiatric help, for the first two weeks of their stay in Maribyrning, nobody came to see her: not a psychiatrist, or a doctor, or a social worker: nobody. Then, on a Sunday night in May 2002, while her parents and her young sister were in the mess hall having their dinner, the eleven-year-old took a bed-sheet and hanged herself. She did not know how to tie the knot properly, and she was still suffocating when the family came back from their dinner. She and her mother were taken to the emergency ward of the local hospital where she was put into intensive care straight away. They had two guards with them, so that, as a matter of legal analysis, they were still in Immigration Detention. The lawyer who had been looking after their refugee application heard about this and went to the hospital at about 9.00pm. He didn�t need to introduce himself because he is a regular visitor at the Detention Centre. He said he wanted to speak to the mother to see if there was anything he could do to help. He was told: �No you can�t see them, because lawyers� visiting hours in Immigration Detention are nine to five�. Thy sent him away.

Things were this bad in 2001, and they've only gotten worse.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:45

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

Mithranderp posted:

Things were this bad in 2001, and they've only gotten worse.

The whole reason we offshore this poo poo is because it was starting to get badly visible how poo poo we were being and causing bad PR. Politicians wanted to keep milking the scare campaign without showing any of the human cost of these policies. So this is where we are. Torturing people to exploit xenophobia and fear at far greater cost than it would ever be if we were just to process and assess their refugee status.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:59

I would blow Dane Cook: Dec 26, 2008

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3506614&pagenumber=148&perpage=40#post452019607

# ? Oct 29, 2015 13:08

Birb Katter: Sep 18, 2010; BOATS STOPPED
CARBON TAX AXED
TURNBULL AS PM
LIBERALS WILL BE RE-ELECTED IN A LANDSLIDE

Imagine how well this would have gone if the Patron Saint of No Boats� Tony Abbott� was in charge.

Those loving hippies at the ABC posted:

Europe migrant crisis: Greece searches for 34 asylum seekers off Lesbos, five children drown
An extensive search is underway near Lesbos for at least 34 people missing after their boat sank in one of the largest maritime disasters since a massive asylum seeker influx began this year.

Five children, two men and one woman were known to have drowned after the wooden boat, crammed with more than 280 people, sank near the island of Lesbos.

Eight more people drowned at two other locations, bringing the day's total dead to 16.

Some 242 people were safely plucked out of the sea after their boat sank about 3 kilometres north of Lesbos in rough seas, the coastguard said.

At least 15 children between the ages of three months and ten years were taken to hospital with hypothermia, according to the UN refugee agency UNHCR.

More than 500,000 refugees and migrants have entered Greece through its outlying islands since January, travelling on to central and northern Europe as part of the biggest humanitarian crisis on the continent in two decades.

Lesbos, located less than 10 kilometres from the coast of Turkey, has been a primary gateway for thousands of asylum seekers crossing the European Union's outermost border.

There has been a surge recently as asylum seekers attempt to beat the worsening weather that makes sea crossings more dangerous.

Asylum seekers report that smugglers now offer "discounts" of up to 50 per cent on tickets costing from 1,100 to 1,400 euros ($1,705 to $2,168) to make the journey on inflatable boats in bad weather, the UNHCR said.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 21:37

Birb Katter: Sep 18, 2010; BOATS STOPPED
CARBON TAX AXED
TURNBULL AS PM
LIBERALS WILL BE RE-ELECTED IN A LANDSLIDE

Thankfully there are no boats coming to Australia so this is not a problem.

gently caress your psyche sand friend of the family posted:

Doctors step up fight to free children in immigration detention, citing mental and physical health concerns
Australia's medical community is increasing pressure on the Federal Government to remove children from immigration detention, as more doctors come forward citing significant mental health concerns.

Paediatricians and other health workers are due to gather in Darwin, Adelaide and Sydney today to call on the Turnbull Government to remove all children and their families from immigration detention.

Paediatrician Joshua Francis told the ABC that it was clear that detention was harmful to children and to their families.

# ? Oct 29, 2015 21:39