Is this the end of the Greens?

[Maggie5]

Playing games? You are the one saying you don't want a return of Rudd's polices yet in the next breath say you support onshore processing (a Rudd policy).

You say that the past is past and that we have learned from it. Yet you still support the key policy that caused the previous problems (and advocate for its return) then you haven't learned anything at all.

If you want let the past go then that means letting go of the failed policies.

Please show me where I have stated anything positive, let alone mentioned Rudd's immigration policies! I think you may have mixed me up with someone else.

On-shore processing is also something the Greens currently support and in my opinion is the best option.

Let me type slowly again for you...
The boats have stopped, no more coming to Australia via Indonesia - tick
I would like to see on-shore processing for all that are currently in detention - tick
It will be cheaper, more human, processed faster (no need to send staff) - tick.
Maybe we will be close to complying with our international obligations - tick
Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Max zero]

Please show me where I have stated anything positive, let alone mentioned Rudd's immigration policies! I think you may have mixed me up with someone else.

On-shore processing is also something the Greens currently support and in my opinion is the best option.

Let me type slowly again for you...
The boats have stopped, no more coming to Australia via Indonesia - tick
I would like to see on-shore processing for all that are currently in detention - tick
It will be cheaper, more human, processed faster (no need to send staff) - tick.
Maybe we will be close to complying with our international obligations - tick
Nothing more nothing less.

On shore processing was a policy implemented by Rudd (with help from the Greens). You support on shore processing. How is that not supporting Rudd's policy?

We tried on shore processing. At the time of implementation we had few boats and no one in detention either. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER ON SHORE PROCESSING WAS IMPLEMENTED?

If we introduced on shore processing again why would the outcome be different from when Rudd implemented it?

 

[Maggie5]

On shore processing was a policy implemented by Rudd (with help from the Greens). You support on shore processing. How is that not supporting Rudd's policy?

We tried on shore processing. At the time of implementation we had few boats and no one in detention either. WHAT HAPPENED AFTER ON SHORE PROCESSING WAS IMPLEMENTED?

If we introduced on shore processing again why would the outcome be different from when Rudd implemented it?

We are going around in circles.
Re your shouting - boats started arriving again but this would not be the case now would it?
Anyway, I am over this discussion as we are covering the same ground over and over again. You don't seem to accept what I have stated and I have no idea why you keep asking the same questions, nor trying to tie me in with Rudd's policies.

Final word - I support the Greens on this policy. End.

 

[Todman]

I don't think that you can compare the boats stopping with what Morrison has done. He has even enlisted seaman from UK and Aus navy boats to patrol using our boats.
Very tight and expensive net around our shores. But you knew this.
Stop playing games.

It's called preventative detention

 

[Max zero]

We are going around in circles.
Re your shouting - boats started arriving again but this would not be the case now would it?
Anyway, I am over this discussion as we are covering the same ground over and over again. You don't seem to accept what I have stated and I have no idea why you keep asking the same questions, nor trying to tie me in with Rudd's policies.

Final word - I support the Greens on this policy. End.

but this would not be the case now would it?

Why not? This is what I don't get. Why wouldn't it happened again?

When Rudd first implemented on shore processing people said that there wouldn't be a spike in arrivals. There was.
Now you are talking about implementing on shore processing again and you are saying there won't be a spike in arrivals. What are you basing this reasoning on and why should anyone believe you?

Then you say you support on shore processing. On shore processing was a Rudd policy but then you claim you don't support Rudd's policies?

Can anyone else decipher this because this is just bizarre?

 

[Todman]

Please show me where I have stated anything positive, let alone mentioned Rudd's immigration policies! I think you may have mixed me up with someone else.

On-shore processing is also something the Greens currently support and in my opinion is the best option.

Let me type slowly again for you...
The boats have stopped, no more coming to Australia via Indonesia - tick
I would like to see on-shore processing for all that are currently in detention - tick
It will be cheaper, more human, processed faster (no need to send staff) - tick.
Maybe we will be close to complying with our international obligations - tick
Nothing more nothing less.

Truly a recipe for people smuggling to start again.

On shore processing means they have access to immigrantion lawyers, court of appeals, sympathic judges etc.
On shore processing means Australia is open for business for people smugglers again.
Faster processing encourages people smugglers and clients. Slow processing creates disillusion for clients, acts as disincentive to attempt journey.
You might think its more humane but the clients will risk their lifes to get on a barely seaworthy boat. Thousands drowned at sea because Australia was more humane.

Your culture says you're being humane, their culture says you're being a soft touch.

 

[Grin]

And what would you call providing an incentive for desperate people to undertake a dangerous act?

I never supported that because I've always supported legalising and regulating those who transport genuine refugees. It's people like you who have maintained the myth of illegal immigrants. Thus enabling criminals to put families in danger for the sake of profits.

Do you support onshore processing?

I oppose child abuse and am disgusted by those who refuse to accept that an alternative to abusing children must be found. I wonder why these animals are so offended by even the thought of finding an alternative.

Or, like me, do you support approaches that don't result in thousands dead and even more in detention?

This is your irrational rationalisation of your enthusiastic support for the abuse of children and the offence you take at the concept that an alternative must be found.

 

[Maggie5]

Truly a recipe for people smuggling to start again.

On shore processing means they have access to immigrantion lawyers, court of appeals, sympathic judges etc.
On shore processing means Australia is open for business for people smugglers again.
Faster processing encourages people smugglers and clients. Slow processing creates disillusion for clients, acts as disincentive to attempt journey.
You might think its more humane but the clients will risk their lifes to get on a barely seaworthy boat. Thousands drowned at sea because Australia was more humane.

Your culture says you're being humane, their culture says you're being a soft touch.

No.1 So what?
No.2 Wrong
No.3 Wrong again

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

How much of a problem are refugees and asylum seekers in the first place? How much trouble are they really, in actual terms?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

When Rudd first implemented on shore processing people said that there wouldn't be a spike in arrivals. There was.

Didn't that coincide with the culmination of Sri Lanka's war against its Tamil population though?

According to this 2009 article in The Age;

http://www.theage.com.au/world/tamils-ride-their-luck-20091030-hptc.html?skin=text-only

Andimunai is one of many towns along the Sri Lankan coast with a long tradition of ''irregular migration''.

Many leave for economic reasons. But two decades of military conflict between the Sri Lankan army and Tamil Tiger rebels helped stoke the seaside people-smuggling culture. Illegal departure by boat has become routine along the Sri Lankan coastline and this has underpinned the recent flurry of vessels filled with Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers trying to reach Australia.

People smugglers on the west coast - called ''agents'' by the locals - have the capacity to mount ambitious maritime projects to deliver their clients to foreign destinations. Mano, a 29-year-old Tamil, says he recently joined a fleet of 10 boats travelling to Europe. The flotilla was well co-ordinated and vessels kept in constant radio contact.

This experienced network of people-smugglers is now responding to a spike in demand since the end of the civil war in May.

''There's a sense that a flight is on, especially among Tamil youth,'' one human rights activist told The Age. ''It's due to fear...'

'

 

[Todman]

No.1 So what?
No.2 Wrong
No.3 Wrong again

Yes you are wrong.

 

[Maggie5]

Yes you are wrong.

Thanks for the discussion, very enlightening.

 

[Max zero]

Didn't that coincide with the culmination of Sri Lanka's war against its Tamil population though?

According to this 2009 article in The Age;

'

So that's the only reason? That's the sole reason that we went from 140 boat arrivals to over 6000? When Abbott came to power did all global strife end hence the fall in boat arrivals?

Or do you think the change in policy had an effect in both situations?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

So that's the only reason? That's the sole reason that we went from 140 boat arrivals to over 6000? When Abbott came to power did all global strife end hence the fall in boat arrivals?

Or do you think the change in policy had an effect in both situations?

So you think the strife in Sri Lanka (and the Sudanese civil war) at the time had no effect whatsoever on asylum seeker numbers? That the sole reason was Labor's refugee policies? Logic points to both having a bit of a part to play in the outcome.

 

[Max zero]

So you think the strife in Sri Lanka (and the Sudanese civil war) at the time had no effect whatsoever on asylum seeker numbers? That the sole reason was Labor's refugee policies? Logic points to both having a bit of a part to play in the outcome.

Did I say it had no effect? I simply asked if you think it was the only factor.

There are both push and pull factors. For some reason people are very reluctant to mention the pull factors. Apart from me has anyone else in this thread mentione them?

People claim I harp about Rudds failures too much and yet they advocate for the very policies with caused this situation in the first place. Obviously I am not harping enough if people are so keen to repeat past mistakes again.

 

[louismaxwell]

We are going around in circles.
Re your shouting - boats started arriving again but this would not be the case now would it?
Anyway, I am over this discussion as we are covering the same ground over and over again. You don't seem to accept what I have stated and I have no idea why you keep asking the same questions, nor trying to tie me in with Rudd's policies.

Final word - I support the Greens on this policy. End.

Well you finally have said it, after numerous coaxing, you support uncontrolled borders then. Well you are part of the problem , hope karma catches up with you for being so STUPID.

 

[Grin]

Well you finally have said it, after numerous coaxing, you support uncontrolled borders then. Well you are part of the problem , hope karma catches up with you for being so STUPID.

Again with the straw man arguments to justify your support for policies that result in the abuse of children.
Why are you Abbott drones so offended by the concept that an alternative to abusing children must be found?
Is there a point where you tire of policies that result in harming children? Or is your lust for the suffering of children insatiable? Do you even see these genuine refugees, traumatised and fleeing for their lives as humans? Or do you consider these people to be animals, kind of like I consider you? (although I would never want to see you harmed. Especially in the way traumatised children are harmed by the policies you support)

 

[Maggie5]

Well you finally have said it, after numerous coaxing, you support uncontrolled borders then. Well you are part of the problem , hope karma catches up with you for being so STUPID.

Comprehension an issue for you?
Show me where my stance has differed.
Oh, BTW, attacking the poster and name calling is not nice.

 

[Max zero]

Comprehension an issue for you?
Show me where my stance has differed.
Oh, BTW, attacking the poster and name calling is not nice.

But apparently liking a post that names other posters as supporters of child abuse is okay. Is this an example of your quality conversation?

But if anyone says anything back Grin gets upset.

 

[The Coup]

But apparently liking a post that names other posters as supporters of child abuse is okay. Is this an example of your quality conversation?

But if anyone says anything back Grin gets upset.

you're such a victim.

 

[Max zero]

you're such a victim.

Hardly, more than happy to dish it out (as you have seen).

The problem is when I dish it out you all get offended and don't want to play anymore.

Pointing our Maggie5's blatant hypocrisy (and your contradictions) is always fun.

 

[Maggie5]

But apparently liking a post that names other posters as supporters of child abuse is okay. Is this an example of your quality conversation?

But if anyone says anything back Grin gets upset.

Get a life and stick to facts, paint the full picture and don't be selective.

 

[louismaxwell]

Comprehension an issue for you?
Show me where my stance has differed.
Oh, BTW, attacking the poster and name calling is not nice.

maggie if you support the SHY (greens) then you support open borders, therefore i am entitled to call you what i did, eitheryou dont know their policy, or you are blithely going along with allowing all that come by sea, therefore opening this country to become overwhelmed and on a downhill road to shitsville, and if you are of the later stance, then you are pissing on the country that gave you refuge , so i stand by my original comment

 

[Maggie5]

maggie if you support the SHY (greens) then you support open borders, therefore i am entitled to call you what i did, eitheryou dont know their policy, or you are blithely going along with allowing all that come by sea, therefore opening this country to become overwhelmed and on a downhill road to shitsville, and if you are of the later stance, then you are pissing on the country that gave you refuge , so i stand by my original comment

Such entitlement, I hope that you enjoy calling others stupid.
Fortunately I don't stoop to your level and you know what? I really don't care what you think.
Carry on

 

[louismaxwell]

Again with the straw man arguments to justify your support for policies that result in the abuse of children.
Why are you Abbott drones so offended by the concept that an alternative to abusing children must be found?
Is there a point where you tire of policies that result in harming children? Or is your lust for the suffering of children insatiable? Do you get pleasure from the suffering of all children? Or is it only the abuse of children, already traumatised and from racial minorities that gives you a thrill?
Is it a sado-erotic thing with you? Or are you a such an enthusiastic supporter of child abuse purely because the Abbott government told you to be? Do you even see these genuine refugees, traumatised and fleeing for their lives as humans? Or do you consider these people to be animals, kind of like I consider you? (although I would never want to see you harmed. Especially in the way traumatised children are harmed by the policies you support)

You need to take a chill, you are sounding unhinged, no children are being abused only in your fevered imagination. They are being processed properly, you are another one who would just like us to have open borders to any person who rocks up. Be mature in your approach and accept we have to have rules on who can come to the country, you would be the first one complaining when we become swamped and the countrys living standards go downhill due having to support more people who dont have the ability to contribute. Do you realise their are 800,000 already on disability pensions. the same number collecting unemployment and god knows how many collect the aged pension. Tell us where the money tee is first before you spout off.