|
Amethyst posted:This is incredible 'capital raiding' There was a documentary made about that: https://vimeo.com/111458975
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:18 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 05:38 |
|
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 about captain cook?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:18 |
|
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?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:20 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
QUACKTASTIC posted:Imagine the water displacement unlimited refugees on unlimited boats would cause, most of the coastal areas would be under water. If Tony stopped the boats then why is Perth still sinking then
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:31 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
i'm glad that together we've managed to reach the conclusion that australia, actually, is bad
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:34 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
That story about Perth sinking made me think of this picture.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:49 |
|
Having not read 'The Economist' before, is it any good?
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:51 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
Negligent posted:23, 117, 89, 110, 403, 104, 1* FOUND CHIEF
|
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 11:57 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
Man that cow is hosed up
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:06 |
|
Zahki posted:Answered this on the previous page. 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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
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 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
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. Things were this bad in 2001, and they've only gotten worse.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 12:45 |
|
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 |
|
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3506614&pagenumber=148&perpage=40#post452019607
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 13:08 |
|
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
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 21:37 |
|
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
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 21:39 |
open24hours posted:There are some pretty impressive pictures of that too. This is the coolest thing I've ever seen
|
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 22:05 |
|
Left-most root is totally Falcor.
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 22:07 |
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Left-most root is totally Falcor. I saw Brontosaurus
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 22:17 |
|
|
# ? Jun 6, 2024 05:38 |
|
Zenithe posted:I saw Brontosaurus It's a big mama brontosaurus with a couple of kids hiding underneath
|
# ? Oct 29, 2015 23:02 |