Mandatory detention of refugees (Stop the boats. 5k a head. Part 2)

Remove this Banner Ad

With Labor looking more and more like a government in waiting it would be nice to think that a little backrooming is being done at ASEAN in the hope we can come up with a better alternative to our current response to the refugee problem.*


*Unless you're a white South African.
You forgot the Rhodesian farmers and Congolse (blood)diamond miners w silicon Dow Corning Jon Waters films chasers

#Poe's_law asterisks and caveats
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I got an email from a South African client asking me to sign a petition to bring the farmers here !
 
With Labor looking more and more like a government in waiting it would be nice to think that a little backrooming is being done at ASEAN in the hope we can come up with a better alternative to our current response to the refugee problem.*

Still flogging that dead horse eh Gough. It was the ALP that brought in mandatory detention. For everyone lone delusional luvvie lounging around on the public purse there are two or three blue collar ALP supporters who have no time for illegal immigration.

Why do you think Rudd changed tack? His initial policy was both a hopeless failure and unpopular. Your preferred policy really going well in the UK.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/cri...lty-of-west-london-tube-bombing-a3791481.html
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So we have turned back 32 boats which history shows us would have been about 95% genuine refugees.
From a country that would be considered an immediate neighbour of ours?
 
Are you a fan of people smugglers, stuff those in refugee camps?


Stuff people smugglers in refugee camps? I think that's a great idea.
 
So we have turned back 32 boats which history shows us would have been about 95% genuine refugees.

A proud Strayan right now.



https://www.sbs.com.au/news/dutton-says-people-smugglers-heard-labor-talking-about-new-zealand




Also, Dutton is a *******.


95% would be approved given the out dated and thoroughly abused UNHCR guidelines having been provided expensive legal representation at taxpayer expense and well drafted scripts by attention seeking welfare seeker advocates. None would have gotten through properly drafted laws which required a refugee to stop in the first country they entered rather than demanding to go to the one with the cushiest welfare system where as Bureau of Stats as shown the overwhelming majority won't bother to get a job and many won't even learn English (since we stupidly provide interpreters to help people claim welfare). Of course, not all 95% would have made it here - quite a few of them would have drowned after being lured to their deaths by welfare seeker advocates. 1200+ deaths at sea known to be due to refugee advocates so far.
 
1200+ deaths at sea known to be due to refugee advocates so far.



Why won't Dutton release figures of how many legitimate refugees have died after being repatriated?

32 boats were turned around, how many floundered at sea after being towed out of our territorial waters?
 
Why won't Dutton release figures of how many legitimate refugees have died after being repatriated?

32 boats were turned around, how many floundered at sea after being towed out of our territorial waters?

Because " We don't comment on on-water matters "
 
Stuff people smugglers in refugee camps? I think that's a great idea.

Happy to be wrong but you seem to be promoting their work, fair dinkum they are the drivers of the boats, those paying them deserve no priority, they deserve to be sent back where they came from, the far queue are the deserving IMHO.
 
95% would be approved given the out dated and thoroughly abused UNHCR guidelines

Can you explain this a bit further? What parts are outdated and what parts are thoroughly abused?

having been provided expensive legal representation at taxpayer expense

Although people seeking asylum that arrived by boat were previously provided free legal representation under IAAAS, that was ended a number of years ago. You'll most likely disagree with me on this, but removing representation in a very confusing system for vulnerable people with histories of trauma (both in their home country and through their experience of mandatory detention) goes against the concept of natural justice.

and well drafted scripts by attention seeking welfare seeker advocates.

I think you'll find the bar to being granted protection in Australia is a lot higher than sticking to a template script. Legal advocates that support people seeking asylum (for free as IAAAS has been ended) are helping them to not misrepresent themselves in an official statement. It's not coaching, unless you think any legal support is essentially coaching and nothing more.

None would have gotten through properly drafted laws which required a refugee to stop in the first country they entered rather than demanding to go to the one with the cushiest welfare system

The welfare system where more than half the people on a payment that someone granted protection would be on are living below the poverty line? Or do you mean a country where they aren't jailed simply for being an asylum seeker, like in some of those transitory countries you're referring to?

where as Bureau of Stats as shown the overwhelming majority won't bother to get a job and many won't even learn English (since we stupidly provide interpreters to help people claim welfare).

What you see as won't bother, I see as something very different. There are many barriers in place for people seeking asylum to obtain employment in Australia - some structural, some personal and some situational. However, the vast majority of people in that situation have tried both a) obtaining employment and b) overcoming those barriers. There is some fantastic work happening in trying to remove those barriers and/or help people overcome them based on funding from State/Territory governments and the efforts of a number of NGOs, so I'd be surprised if those statistics stay the same. I'm sure you'd agree it's a lot more nuanced than your throwaway comment suggests.

That being said, I agree on the importance of learning English and I'm sometimes flummoxed as to why the English literacy rates are so low in this group of people. I know that there are barriers to that for some people, but it's something that needs to be addressed.

Of course, not all 95% would have made it here - quite a few of them would have drowned after being lured to their deaths by welfare seeker advocates. 1200+ deaths at sea known to be due to refugee advocates so far.
Rather than engaging with this part, I'll just leave it alone as propaganda.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top