Stop the boats. 5k a head. (cont. in Part 2)

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Where did I say that?

I'm asking what would be a better overall solution. Make sure to include how many overall asylum seekers you intend on dealing with and how will you deal with any above that number.

implied. Where have you denounced this practice?

 

[Maggie5]

If you have a problem with the current solutions fair enough but what do we do instead which will answer the two questions I have asked?

As I said, if we can't solve the current situation - no point in looking at what the future will look like. Besides, IMO the situation of 457 visas also needs to be resolved before we look at the best way to deal with immigration.
I think of those on 457 visas that eventually obtain permanent residency (100,000 inc. partners/families?), perhaps an additional 50,000?
However, I still have an objection to cooks/chefs, kitchen hands, retail assistants and the like coming in on 457 visas that eventually take up a position of a genuine refugee.

Answered your question in part but now over to you, how do you feel about the way children in detention are currently being treated?
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/07/31/inquiry-urges-morrisson-speak-detention/
Mr Bowles said he would make no comments on Nauru as the scope of the commission extended only to onshore detention centres.

 

[Max zero]

implied. Where have you denounced this practice?

Children in custody is a tragedy. But it's a symptom not a cause. Unless we have a workable system then the problem will continue into the future.

 

[Max zero]

As I said, if we can't solve the current situation - no point in looking at what the future will look like. Besides, IMO the situation of 457 visas also needs to be resolved before we look at the best way to deal with immigration.
I think of those on 457 visas that eventually obtain permanent residency (100,000 inc. partners/families?), perhaps an additional 50,000?
However, I still have an objection to cooks/chefs, kitchen hands, retail assistants and the like coming in on 457 visas that eventually take up a position of a genuine refugee.

Answered your question in part but now over to you, how do you feel about the way children in detention are currently being treated?
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2014/07/31/inquiry-urges-morrisson-speak-detention/
Mr Bowles said he would make no comments on Nauru as the scope of the commission extended only to onshore detention centres.

How do I feel? Easy it's a tragedy and should be fixed. If this was Q and A I would probably get a round of applause now. Of course the problem remains unsolved.

The cause of children in custody is because processing takes too long. Processing takes too long due to the number of applicants and the difficulty of processing them (lack of documents). We have asylum seekers because applicants outnumber our intake.

Unless these core issues are dealt with we will be having this conversation for the next 20 years.

 

[Maggie5]

Children in custody is a tragedy. But it's a symptom not a cause. Unless we have a workable system then the problem will continue into the future.

That is a statement, not answer - questions are:
Is it humane?
Should the be held in detention off-shore?
Options? Can you explore the response more than just a statement?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

How do you know? You don't even know how much money is required in the first place?

Your a talking about relocating, educating, training and feeding a hundred thousand people (your numbers) like its the movie 'Dave.' Where you just get a notepad, cancel a few program switch a few numbers and bang! Problem solved.

You still have not given any actual information on how you will manage these 100,000 people.

You still have no given any actual information on how you manage any applicants above the 100,000 limit.

No we have DivideandMultiply running around in a moral panic with has become par for the course on the topic.

"I don't know how but fix it! Wave your magic wand and make the pain go away! Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!"

What 100k people?

If you don't get in a moral panic about the state mistreating the vulnerable, especially children, what do you get in a moral panic about?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

The cause of children in custody is because processing takes too long. Processing takes too long due to the number of applicants and the difficulty of processing them (lack of documents). We have asylum seekers because applicants outnumber our intake.

Processing takes to long, due to allocation of resources.

 

[Maggie5]

Processing takes to long, due to allocation of resources.

Also I don't believe it is a priority - the longer they stay in detention, the easier it is to break their spirit and hope that they will want to go back or go crazy.

 

[Max zero]

That is a statement, not answer - questions are:
Is it humane?
Should the be held in detention off-shore?
Options? Can you explore the response more than just a statement?

Your the one so stressed out about it. Why is it up to me to find a solution for something you care so much about?

To me children in custody is just one of many symptoms. What makes one symptom more serious then another?

Any solution to a symptom won't fix the underlying cause. It's simply a feel good measure.

 

[Max zero]

What 100k people?

If you don't get in a moral panic about the state mistreating the vulnerable, especially children, what do you get in a moral panic about?

Because a moral panic does not solve anything. You have been in a panic for several pages and have you got anything to show for it except some moral superiority?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Because a moral panic does not solve anything. You have been in a panic for several pages and have you got anything to show for it except some moral superiority?

Several pages? Nothing but hyperbole. I have posted only a handful of times in the entire 213 page thread.

I think revulsion is a perfectly reasonable response.

Also, disgust over the behavior of the state does achieve things. Especially if widespread. A strong public reaction can most definitely sway policy makers.

You also act like it is a shameful thing, to be opposed to the abuse and neglect of children by the state, likewise attempts to cover up vital information when acting against the public good.

 

[DivideandMultiply]

To me children in custody is just one of many symptoms. What makes one symptom more serious then another?

This is absurd and as an analogy completely fails. Symptoms can most definitely have varying degrees of severity. In fact, modern medicine largely deals with managing symptoms.

The root cause of the problem is geopolitical instability, which we have helped create. Maybe in a small way, but being involved in the middle eastern conflicts, unconditionally supporting Israel, or aiding and shielding rights abusers like Sri Lanka can in both small and large ways help exacerbate the situation.

It also doesn't help when we cut our foreign aid budget, nor wage economic/legal battles with countries like East Timor over control of their resources.

If we want to treat the problem, a start would then be being better global citizens.

 

[Max zero]

Several pages? Nothing but hyperbole. I have posted only a handful of times in the entire 213 page thread.

I think revulsion is a perfectly reasonable response.

Also, disgust over the behavior of the state does achieve things. Especially if widespread. A strong public reaction can most definitely sway policy makers.

You also act like it is a shameful thing, to be opposed to the abuse and neglect of children by the state, likewise attempts to cover up vital information when acting against the public good.

I don't think it's shameful just an empty gesture.

If you really want to help children in custody you would come up with a solution to my two questions: how many asylum seekers do we take and what do we do with any above that amount. Take into account humane treatment, cost or political fallout but actually offer a workable solution. Anything else is just posturing.

Be better global citizens? That's the best you have got?

 

[Maggie5]

Your the one so stressed out about it. Why is it up to me to find a solution for something you care so much about?

To me children in custody is just one of many symptoms. What makes one symptom more serious then another?

Any solution to a symptom won't fix the underlying cause. It's simply a feel good measure.

I believe that I have engaged in this thread in a mature way, you asked a question and I not only answered but also put another questions to you in which you have not answered. I find it laughable that you pester other posters to answer your question yet you refuse yourself but state, "why is it up to me to find a solution". You are a joke!
Answer the questions or don't you care about children in detention?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

I don't think it's shameful just an empty gesture.

If you really want to help children in custody you would come up with a solution to my two questions: how many asylum seekers do we take and what do we do with any above that amount. Take into account humane treatment, cost or political fallout but actually offer a workable solution. Anything else is just posturing.

Be better global citizens? That's the best you have got?

Really, so you are president of the world and me answering these two questions will give you the vital information needed to fix the problem?

Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound?

Be better global citizens, by not engaging in the behavior I mentioned won't solve the problem, but it directly tackles our contribution to the disease. The disease in not the volume of arrivals, but the cause of seeking asylum or displacement.

The best method, IMO, would be if we could negotiate terms for offshore processing in Indonesia (which at one stage they were receptive to). Allocate genuine resources towards processing claimants in a timely manner, and/or if offshore processing is not possible offer asylum seeker families the option of working and integration programs as opposed to detention. There are still regional/remote areas which despite the jobs shortage have difficulty staffing. For example fruit growing/agriculture is a major area, which experiences both high staff turnover, already relies on imported labor and often has a shortfall in applicants.

Ban discretionary use of 457 visas for non skilled work and tighten regulation. Especially in regional areas, with the right job programs in place this may provide far more opportunities for asylum seekers and decrease incurred costs by the state.

We don't even meet our supposed intake obligations for official UN camps, so arguing about cue jumping is a redundant exercise.

Australia could very easily afford to increase it's intake of boat arrivals, decrease processing time and develop alternatives to offshore detention.

 

[Max zero]

I believe that I have engaged in this thread in a mature way, you asked a question and I not only answered but also put another questions to you in which you have not answered. I find it laughable that you pester other posters to answer your question yet you refuse yourself but state, "why is it up to me to find a solution". You are a joke!
Answer the questions or don't you care about children in detention?

So you can only care about children in detention if you what exactly?

What do you exactly want me to say about children in detention? Offer more of the empty platitudes you do?

My feelings on children in detention is that all current solutions are just stop gap measures.

My solution to to children in detention is to did a solution to the fact that we have more people applying for asylum then we have space or facilities to deal with.

Say we take children out of detention. What about their parents? We just leave them in detention? Do we place them in foster homes? Do we have the facilities and personal to accommodate that? Do we try to keep families together? If we can't what then? What if the application process drags out how long do we leave them in foster care? Do we offer then schooling? If they pass 16 do they go back into detention?

Have you thought about this at all? Or is it just an empty gesture?

 

[DivideandMultiply]

Have you thought about this at all? Or is it just an empty gesture?

The simple answer is, allocate greater resources to processing applications. Have the state manage facilities, not contractors. Do not use detention centres, allocate the funds for more humane living spaces and adequately attend to medical, sanitary and food/water/shelter needs. Allow NGO's greater access and approach charities and aid organisations for funding.

Work cooperatively, not antagonistically with many of the refugee resetlement orgs interested in educating, training and helping refugees integrate.

Do not have centres off shore. Allow public scrutiny and oversight. We have the money, even a small cut and reallocation of exorbitant naval funding, for patrols, staffing and drones/new hardware, would significantly help solve this manufactured humanitarian crisis.

 

[Maggie5]

So you can only care about children in detention if you what exactly?

What do you exactly want me to say about children in detention? Offer more of the empty platitudes you do?

My feelings on children in detention is that all current solutions are just stop gap measures.

My solution to to children in detention is to did a solution to the fact that we have more people applying for asylum then we have space or facilities to deal with.

Say we take children out of detention. What about their parents? We just leave them in detention? Do we place them in foster homes? Do we have the facilities and personal to accommodate that? Do we try to keep families together? If we can't what then? What if the application process drags out how long do we leave them in foster care? Do we offer then schooling? If they pass 16 do they go back into detention?

Have you thought about this at all? Or is it just an empty gesture?

Exactly, typical.
You have no right to expect other posters to take you seriously or answer your questions.

 

[Maggie5]

The simple answer is, allocate greater resources to processing applications. Have the state manage facilities, not contractors. Do not use detention centres, allocate the funds for more humane living spaces and adequately attend to medical, sanitary and food/water/shelter needs. Allow NGO's greater access and approach charities and aid organisations for funding.

Work cooperatively, not antagonistically with many of the refugee resetlement orgs interested in educating, training and helping refugees integrate.

Do not have centres off shore. Allow public scrutiny and oversight. We have the money, even a small cut and reallocation of exorbitant naval funding, for patrols, staffing and drones/new hardware, would significantly help solve this manufactured humanitarian crisis.

Thank you

 

[Max zero]

Really, so you are president of the world and me answering these two questions will give you the vital information needed to fix the problem?

Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound?

Be better global citizens, by not engaging in the behavior I mentioned won't solve the problem, but it directly tackles our contribution to the disease. The disease in not the volume of arrivals, but the cause of seeking asylum or displacement.

The best method, IMO, would be if we could negotiate terms for offshore processing in Indonesia (which at one stage they were receptive to). Allocate genuine resources towards processing claimants in a timely manner, and/or if offshore processing is not possible offer asylum seeker families the option of working and integration programs as opposed to detention. There are still regional/remote areas which despite the jobs shortage have difficulty staffing. For example fruit growing/agriculture is a major area, which experiences both high staff turnover, already relies on imported labor and often has a shortfall in applicants.

Ban discretionary use of 457 visas for non skilled work and tighten regulation. Especially in regional areas, with the right job programs in place this may provide far more opportunities for asylum seekers and decrease incurred costs by the state.

We don't even meet our supposed intake obligations for official UN camps, so arguing about cue jumping is a redundant exercise.

Australia could very easily afford to increase it's intake of boat arrivals, decrease processing time and develop alternatives to offshore detention.

It's about going beyond grandstanding and actually moving towards a solution.

My first point is that it is very much about volume. If there was only a handful of boat arrivals a year this thread wouldn't exist.

As for your solutions. Some of them may well be workable. The demonizing of 457 visas is old hate but whatever.

The problem is how far do these solutions scale? They may well work a few thousand applicants. But how much further? If applicants exceed our ability to accommodate them what do we do?

 

[Max zero]

The simple answer is, allocate greater resources to processing applications. Have the state manage facilities, not contractors. Do not use detention centres, allocate the funds for more humane living spaces and adequately attend to medical, sanitary and food/water/shelter needs. Allow NGO's greater access and approach charities and aid organisations for funding.

Work cooperatively, not antagonistically with many of the refugee resetlement orgs interested in educating, training and helping refugees integrate.

Do not have centres off shore. Allow public scrutiny and oversight. We have the money, even a small cut and reallocation of exorbitant naval funding, for patrols, staffing and drones/new hardware, would significantly help solve this manufactured humanitarian crisis.

Can you show examples where this has worked for other countries?

Sounds like a dream solution so surely someone else has tried it?

 

[midorigreenwood]

There are really two problems here (one that many folks are ignoring)

1) Children in detention

2) not encouraging more children to come on leaky boats

The number of boats have reduced to a manageable number (one every month or two) hence the number of children coming is reduced too (from the thousands previously) so any change in policy would want to ensure that at least the status quo is met.

Easiest and quickest solution

Bring every child onshore but only with the eligibility to apply for a temporary protection visa.

If policy doesn't encourage a flood of kids ala the mexico border in the USA then continue policy

if policy fails criteria then go back to old policy.

 

[Norwegian Blue]

Easiest and quickest solution

Bring every child onshore but only with the eligibility to apply for a temporary protection visa.

If policy doesn't encourage a flood of kids ala the mexico border in the USA then continue policy

if policy fails criteria then go back to old policy.

We can't do that, TPVs are EEEEEEEVIL. The Greens told me so when the Howard government implemented them.

 

[Todman]

There are really two problems here (one that many folks are ignoring)

1) Children in detention

2) not encouraging more children to come on leaky boats

The number of boats have reduced to a manageable number (one every month or two) hence the number of children coming is reduced too (from the thousands previously) so any change in policy would want to ensure that at least the status quo is met.

Easiest and quickest solution

Bring every child onshore but only with the eligibility to apply for a temporary protection visa.

If policy doesn't encourage a flood of kids ala the mexico border in the USA then continue policy

if policy fails criteria then go back to old policy.

Don't change the policy , let it be known that if you bring your kids with you on a leaky boat then you are putting them at greater risk.

We don't need more damaged kids coming to Oz because there is more than enough of our own here.

Bring every child onshore but only with the eligibility to apply for a temporary protection visa is not a solution , it's a carrot.

The Yanks screwed up by not turning back kids at the Mexician border. you may think it's cruel, but foreigners understand cruel.

 

[slicedndiced]

you may think it's cruel, but foreigners understand cruel.

Which is justification for imposing more cruelty onto them?

You, and a few others, need to check if you have a pulse.