Gillard ends discriminatory asylum policy Part II

[Malifice]

UN treaty is clear.

Australia has no obligation whatsoever to process refugees.

Meds, the treaty imposes on the Commonwealth a number of obligations on the treatment of refugees, from non enfoulment to guaranteing certain freedoms and more.

How can such a thing be possible sans 'processing'?

Its a little like the Housing Act over here in the UK; it imposes certain obligations on Local Authorities when dealing with Homeless applicants (the duty to provide interum accomodation, the duty to make enquiries and so on). Local Authorities attempt to skirt these obligations by refusing to accept applications or process applications recieved from Homeless people (until threatened with Judicial Review at least).

Are you honestly suggesting that a Law that requires a State to perform certain obligations towards a group of people, does not require the State to set up a system to process or administer those obligations towards a certain group of people?

Because thats a flawed argeument at best.

Your better argument would be to argue that Australia (as a 'dualist' nation) is not bound to International Law (and thus treaty obligations) on a domestic scale (and even that argument has holes).

 

[Max zero]

Havent I been in support of a 'no advantage' rule?

My main gripe is people supporting the State circumventing the Rule of Law, Separation of the Powers, removal of procedural fairness, access to judical supervision of the executive and so on.



Provide me numbers of Refugees that have died or been tortured sitting in refugee camps and warzones around the world in the past year.

We can compare them with those that have died attepting the voyage.

You dont think they understand the risks? They accept the risk of drowning because the risks of death remaining where they are are greater.

The mythical no advantage rule. Really would like to see how this would be enforced.

Neither of our solutions will stop deaths at refugee camps (unless you expect to run all the refugee camps in the world). My solution has proven to stop people dying at sea, saves money (the facilities were empty at the end of Howards reign) and requires no magical no advantage rule to work.

If no one is the detention centre what legal concerns are there?

 

[Malifice]

If no one is the detention centre what legal concerns are there?

If we are to indefinitely detain people (including children), without access to the judiciary, by the military and at gunpoint, and offshore, then there is every legal concern.

Particulary when we not only expressly conduct such a pogrom outside of established laws, sans any Judicial accountability of the officers of the Executive 'administering' the system, and (at least in part) due to peoples fears of a minority group.

Put aside for a second the fact theyre Muslim, or asylum seekers or even 'suspected economic migrants', and put aside your politics, and just think about what kind of power you are advocating the State having here.

Its illiberal, un-Australian and blatantly tyrannical.

Youd be the first person wailing about freedom of speech being infringed, or if the State tried to take away your car (for example) now look at what you are expressly authorising the commonwealth to do here - and Im not just talking about the power itself (detaining people, indefinately, offshore, at gunpoint) , but also the utter lack of accountability in carrying out that power according to established law (expressly shielding themselves from Judical accountability, claiming to be acting 'outside the law' and that "Australian law does not apply to the State in this case', expressly denying these people basic natural justice or procedural fairness etc etc).

Its a sad state of affairs when any person agitates the State for such a power, let alone the State actually enacts it.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

If we are to indefinitely detain people (including children), without access to the judiciary, by the military and at gunpoint, and offshore, then there is every legal concern.

Has this happened in the recent past and who says that it's going to happen now, by the military at gunpoint? I can't remember seeing this stated anywhere.

 

[Max zero]

If we are to indefinitely detain people (including children), without access to the judiciary, by the military and at gunpoint, and offshore, then there is every legal concern.

The histrionics again?

Tell me how many people were being detained at the end of Howard's reign?

Wouldn't it be better to have empty detention centres rather then full ones, no matter where they are located?

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

The histrionics again?

Tell me how many people were being detained at the end of Howard's reign?

Wouldn't it be better to have empty detention centres rather then full ones, no matter where they are located?

Damned right it would

 

[Gough]

http://www.julianburnside.com.au/challenge.htm

The Great Big Spending Challenge
The Pacific Solution Mk II is going to cost billions of dollars.

The Challenge
You don’t have to be a fan of asylum seekers to take this challenge. You can disagree with everything I argue for and still take this challenge. You can assume that all, or some, or none of the people processed offshore will end up in Australia with protection visas: you can still take the challenge.
The Challenge is this: name some ways the government could spend $15 billion (i.e. 15 thousand million dollars) on projects that would help Australia.
Best suggestion wins a prize.
Best suggestion from liberal voter wins a better prize.
Tweet your suggestions, and also email them to me:

Given both sides obsession with budget surplus' Burnside makes a fair point. Offshore processing is massively expensive when compared to onshore processing.

 

[Upton Sinclair]

I already tweeted JB my answer - a new electricity grid.

 

[PottSie2]

http://www.julianburnside.com.au/challenge.htm

The Great Big Spending Challenge
The Pacific Solution Mk II is going to cost billions of dollars.

The Challenge
You don’t have to be a fan of asylum seekers to take this challenge. You can disagree with everything I argue for and still take this challenge. You can assume that all, or some, or none of the people processed offshore will end up in Australia with protection visas: you can still take the challenge.
The Challenge is this: name some ways the government could spend $15 billion (i.e. 15 thousand million dollars) on projects that would help Australia.
Best suggestion wins a prize.
Best suggestion from liberal voter wins a better prize.
Tweet your suggestions, and also email them to me:

Given both sides obsession with budget surplus' Burnside makes a fair point. Offshore processing is massively expensive when compared to onshore processing.

Just imagine what this country could have done with all the extra money had they kept the PS running.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

http://www.julianburnside.com.au/challenge.htm

The Great Big Spending Challenge
The Pacific Solution Mk II is going to cost billions of dollars.

The Challenge
You don’t have to be a fan of asylum seekers to take this challenge. You can disagree with everything I argue for and still take this challenge. You can assume that all, or some, or none of the people processed offshore will end up in Australia with protection visas: you can still take the challenge.
The Challenge is this: name some ways the government could spend $15 billion (i.e. 15 thousand million dollars) on projects that would help Australia.
Best suggestion wins a prize.
Best suggestion from liberal voter wins a better prize.
Tweet your suggestions, and also email them to me:

Given both sides obsession with budget surplus' Burnside makes a fair point. Offshore processing is massively expensive when compared to onshore processing.

So if the $15 billion is spent elsewhere, what gets spent on the economic refugees? Nothing? We just let people come and land here as they please?

Is that what he's saying?

 

[bombermick]

If you're processing refugees onshore you're already giving them advantage over those stuck in Indonesia or Malaysia with no work rights, and of course over those stuck in an African shithole.

There's no simple solution to this problem. We either be tough bastards or we accept A LOT more refugees, or both.

 

[bombermick]

So if the $15 billion is spent elsewhere, what gets spent on the economic refugees? Nothing? We just let people come and land here as they please?

Is that what he's saying?

This term economic refugee is bullshit.

These poor people are stuck in SE Asia with no right to work and are regulary hounded up by Police, and their kids aren't allowed to go to school.

I'm not for opening the doors to anyone who wants to come here, far from it. But the kind of language you and the Alan Jones of this world use re: this issue is horseshit.

 

[Gough]

I dislike the assumption peddled by some of the more shouty media outlets, that we are under siege and the brown hordes are invading our shores. If you couple this type of hysteria, with the constant inflammatory language used by politicians to score cheap points off each other, it doesn't allow much space for reasonable debate.

 

[PottSie2]

This term economic refugee is bullshit.

These poor people are stuck in SE Asia with no right to work and are regulary hounded up by Police, and their kids aren't allowed to go to school.

I'm not for opening the doors to anyone who wants to come here, far from it. But the kind of language you and the Alan Jones of this world use re: this issue is horseshit.

Lifestyle refugee seem better ?

What do we say to all those refugees far far away, hidden away from the media suffering from potential genocide and starvation ?

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

This term economic refugee is bullshit.

These poor people are stuck in SE Asia with no right to work and are regulary hounded up by Police, and their kids aren't allowed to go to school.

I'm not for opening the doors to anyone who wants to come here, far from it. But the kind of language you and the Alan Jones of this world use re: this issue is horseshit.

Why are they stuck there when they're not from there? It's their choice. The ones I feel sorry for are the kids who don't get a say in matters.

 

[bombermick]

Lifestyle refugee seem better ?

What do we say to all those refugees far far away, hidden away from the media suffering from potential genocide and starvation ?

Your term still implies some type of choice - that they're looking for a better life. When really they're looking for a life.

Yes, there are refugees in African camps that are much worse off, but these loaded terms don't help to have a reasoned debate.

Maybe the U.N needs to relax adoption procedures so westerners can more easily adopt them if they wish. It's a drop in the ocean, but one less kid in an African hellhole is something.

 

[bombermick]

Why are they stuck there when they're not from there? It's their choice. The ones I feel sorry for are the kids who don't get a say in matters.

You're an ethnic minority in a war-torn land (remembering we invaded countries like Afghanistan), what would you do?

You think they live in a country that doesn't acknowledge their existence because they wanted that? Amazing.

 

[Gough]

The concept of having aspirations for your children only applies when you live in a first world country it would appear.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

The concept of having aspirations for your children only applies when you live in a first world country it would appear.

At what price? Having an Australian sailor pull their face down, bloated, little body out of the water? I'm sure those ones were just tickled pink with mummy and daddy's aspirations for them.

 

[Herne Hill Hammer]

You're an ethnic minority in a war-torn land (remembering we invaded countries like Afghanistan), what would you do?

Find the nearest place that is safe.

 

[Gough]

At what price? Having an Australian sailor pull their face down, bloated, little body out of the water? I'm sure those ones were just tickled pink with mummy and daddy's aspirations for them.

That their parents choose to take such an enormous risk with the lives of children may give you some indication of the conditions in which they previously had been living.

 

[R00StaR]

You're an ethnic minority in a war-torn land (remembering we invaded countries like Afghanistan), what would you do?

You think they live in a country that doesn't acknowledge their existence because they wanted that? Amazing.

The same Afghanistan we just played a ODI at? It appears theres at least some safe places there or our team wouldnt go. I think its more likely a 10k boat trip for for our massive welfare and benefits might be playing a huge part.

 

[Gough]

They played it in the UAE.

 

[R00StaR]

They played it in the UAE.

Ahh ok my bad if it was, thought they said it was in Afghanistan while i was watching. Admittedly i only lasted 15min before falling asleep.

Even still, its not exactly war torn. They arent running from our (UN/ US) troops, its their own f**cking crazies that are the problem. Besides, doesnt the UN have camps closer than Australia?

 

[Malifice]

Even still, its not exactly war torn. They arent running from our (UN/ US) troops, its their own f**cking crazies that are the problem. Besides, doesnt the UN have camps closer than Australia?

Afghanistan is not war torn eh?

Sure youll be booking a holiday over there soon.