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

Remove this Banner Ad

They presumably didn't expect Trump to win? This has probably been discussed for months while assuming an easy Clinton win.
Hooray for common sense.
The immediate and deliberate ignorance over this is obviously politically based due to their being so little downside doing the deal for the nation.

Everyone knows this type of deal must have been on ongoing discussion for months.
Everyone knows that this deal may have simply been made on a not so bizzarre assumption that the same administration would be re-elected with a different president. They coulndnt negotiate it with Trump could they ?
Everyone knows the president elect has opposing views and he may shoot it down. Should we also suspend trade deals with other nations simply because every country has elections at some point down the track ?
Everyone knows this could have simply been Obama trying to act self righteous and rush thru a few legacy items...in the hope noone recalls that he deported more refugees and migrants than any other president in history.

We should say no to the deal on offer ? They cant....it is actually terrific news. Do we even have the ability to recognise good news on this issue ?
Do some of us hope they somehow fail ? Of course but who cares about them.
It obviouslly shits some people that any government might actually deliver a result that is palatable on this, and be left having to recognise a decent job fixing something we were childish enough to create to our detriment.

Trump winning was a surprise to every govt in the world...but if the deal is still on the table it doesnt matter why or how...you take the deal and ANNOUNCE IT...FAST. Announce it to the world, and then argue your case later with the new guy.

It is of course risky for Turnbull because he can end up looking silly....but we damn well take the deal regardless of whether something MIGHT change later on and be reversed. We cant avoid deals on "Might" or "What if"...or we'd never do anything.

We commit the old administration to it during this caretaker period, then worry about schmoozing the new bloke later on. We can always compromise later, we can even throw some spanish doubloons in the treasure chest later.

I fail to see any reason how anyone could possibly see a downside in committing to the deal NOW and especially ANNOUNCING it...unless of course it is based purely on their personal political leaning.

For the nation...there is no downside doing the deal and announcing it.
For Turnbull....there IS huge downside potential if it doesnt eventuate.

As a PM he is doing the right thing putting the nations interest and the interests of the people in detention first. Of course he knows he runs a personal politcial risk if it falls thru.

Like anything...when there is no downside risk FOR THE NATION in doing the deal...you do it, and worry about the politics later.

Everyone should ask themselves a simple question with this....if you had this deal in the wings, would you reject it simply because Trump may reverse it ?

Turnbull has announced it. That in itself now means Trump would at least need to spend his own political capital pissing off a friend and ally. If he does reverse it...bugger it...but there's no downside except for egg throwing at the Prime Minister.
 
Last edited:
Do you honestly think that Trump gives a s**t about Australia?
Why are you seeking answers to the bleeding obvious ?

Of course he doesnt give a s**t NOW. He didnt need to before and doesnt need to now.
But being in office is an entirely different thing.
He now doesnt need to throw around rhetoric designed purely to gain office...he has won office. Already the softening and bending on some things is coming out, as the reality of what he has achieved and the job in front of him sinks in.

Do people want Turnbull to somehow say no ? Do people think those on Nauru/Manus shouldnt have Australia at least TRY to achieve the best deal FOR THEM ?

The only downside risk is being borne by the PM and his administration. Thats his job, and i am happy to recognise common sense and half decent leadership when i see it happening.

There is a short window of opportunity for all nations to rush thru what they had on the table....just in case the new bloke hates it.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #79
Why are you seeking answers to the bleeding obvious ?

Of course he doesnt give a s**t NOW. He didnt need to before and doesnt need to now.
But being in office is an entirely different thing.
He now doesnt need to throw around rhetoric designed purely to gain office...he has won office. Already the softening and bending on some things is coming out, as the reality of what he has achieved and the job in front of him sinks in.

Do people want Turnbull to somehow say no ? Do people think those on Nauru/Manus shouldnt have Australia at least TRY to achieve the best deal FOR THEM ?

The only downside risk is being borne by the PM and his administration. Thats his job, and i am happy to recognise common sense and half decent leadership when i see it happening.

There is a short window of opportunity for all nations to rush thru what they had on the table....just in case the new bloke hates it.
If you knew my posting history you would know that of course something should be done for the Asylum seekers.

I would have preferred to wait until it was a done deal as I don't know what the outcome would be for the mental health of those people if it doesn't go through. So the downside is not just the government and the PM.
 
If you knew my posting history you would know that of course something should be done for the Asylum seekers.

I would have preferred to wait until it was a done deal as I don't know what the outcome would be for the mental health of those people if it doesn't go through. So the downside is not just the government and the PM.
Fair enough. Sorry, i know i sometimes come across terse. When i get some spare time and can be bothered i blurt out a big whinge or rant in the shortest time possible.
 
A new nadir, which is some achievement when you consider how low the bar is already set.


For Chairman Mal the good news is he knows where the cancer is.
Bad news is he doesn't have the sack to start Chemo..........
 
I don't even understand why he would say that.

Riding Trump's coat-tails?

To an extent. It's not so much about the content as it is the principle of having a discussion about whether immigrants from certain societies and cultures are better for Australia than others.

The topic has been taboo for a long time now. It will be interesting to see how long the government runs with it.
 
To an extent. It's not so much about the content as it is the principle of having a discussion about whether immigrants from certain societies and cultures are better for Australia than others.

The topic has been taboo for a long time now. It will be interesting to see how long the government runs with it.
But Fraser let in largely Vietnamese, the comment doesn't make any sense. It's an attempt to frame an argument for a zero refugee intake to appease the ON crowd.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

To an extent. It's not so much about the content as it is the principle of having a discussion about whether immigrants from certain societies and cultures are better for Australia than others.

The topic has been taboo for a long time now. It will be interesting to see how long the government runs with it.
For a good reason as well. It used to be called the White Australia Policy. I don't mind the conversation but Dutton was so scared of painting the current Government in anything but a good light he chose Fraser. In the process he confirmed he is the biggest goose in Cabinet.

There has been widespread acknowledgement that some groups have used kinship bonds , either through ethnicity or explicit family ties, to choose a path that leads to criminal activity, but it doesn't mean all are. Bolt was dog whistling about the Sudanese as a whole when it is a smaller part of that group and because Dutton didn't want to admit his Party had let them in he went back 40 years.
 
Possibly.

But i'd say the end game is more about a more selective refugee intake than a zero one.

Some better context on Dutton's comments

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...ebanese-migrants/story-e6frgda6-1111112763458

IMMIGRATION authorities warned the Fraser government in 1976 it was accepting too many Lebanese Muslim refugees without "the required qualities" for successful integration.

The Fraser cabinet was also told many of the refugees were unskilled, illiterate and had questionable character and standards of personal hygiene.

Cabinet documents released today by the National Archives under the 30-year rule reveal how Australia's decision to accept thousands of Lebanese Muslims fleeing Lebanon's 1976 civil war led to a temporary collapse of normal eligibility standards.

The emergence of the documents raises the question of whether the temporary relaxation might have contributed to contemporary racial tensions in Sydney's southwest, which exploded a year ago into race-based riots in Cronulla.

Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser rejected yesterday any link and said modern Muslim youth felt alienated because governments had not done enough to help them integrate into the general community.

"I suspect the schools weren't equipped (and) I suspect the communities weren't equipped," Mr Fraser told The Australian.

But demographer Bob Birrell said the relatively depressed nature of Sydney's Muslim community could easily be linked to the lack of education and work skills of the 1970s migrants.

John Howard was accused of inflaming public hatred towards the Islamic community last February when he warned that aspects of Muslim culture posed an unprecedented challenge for Australia's immigration program.

The Prime Minister said while he remained confident the overwhelming majority of Muslims would be successfully integrated, there were unique problems that previous intakes of migrants from Europe and Asia did not have.

"I do think there is this particular complication because there is a fragment which is utterly antagonistic to our kind of society, and that is a difficulty," he told The Australian then.

"You can't find any equivalent in Italian, Greek, or Lebanese, or Chinese or Baltic immigration to Australia. There is no equivalent of raving on about jihad, but that is the major problem.

"I think some of the associated attitudes towards women (are also) a problem."

Mr Fraser's first full year in office, revealed in the papers released today, saw a frenzy of decision-making, with the cabinet making more than 2000 decisions and receiving more than 50,000 pages in submissions - twice the workload shouldered the year before by the Whitlam government.

Troubled by a deteriorating economy, the government unleashed a razor gang to slash spending. The abrupt ideological shift from free-wheeling Labor idealism to economically dour conservatism triggered cabinet policy tensions and an epic battle between Mr Fraser and the bureaucracy on economic policy.

In September 1976, as a humanitarian response to the civil war raging at the time between Lebanese Christians and Muslims, cabinet agreed to relax rules requiring immigrants to be healthy, of good character and to have a work qualification.

The war claimed 50,000 lives and displaced 600,000 people, many of whom fled to Cyprus, where Australia set up processing facilities in the capital, Nicosia.

Australia accepted 4000 Lebanese immigrants in 1976.

A cabinet submission of November 30 called for a return to the normal arrangements. The Fraser government boosted immigration numbers from 55,000 in 1975-76 to 70,000 in 1976-77.

Mr Fraser told The Australian that cabinet had relaxed entry qualifications as a humanitarian response to the Lebanese civil war in line with Australia's international responsibilities.

He said it would be wrong to assert that current tensions in the Muslim community came about because his government had allowed "bad people" to enter the country.

Current racial tensions related to people born in Australia - not the immigrant refugees, he said.

"From my point of view, I think the education system and the community have got to take a pretty fair part of the blame (for current problems)," Mr Fraser said. "If there were known to be problems in relation to the Lebanese, maybe the very pertinent question is: why weren't some special efforts made to ward off future difficulties?"

Immigration minister Michael MacKellar told colleagues in 1976 officials had cited concerns about health and character requirements, personal qualities and the migrants' ability to integrate.

Whereas earlier Lebanese intakes had involved an even split of Christians and Muslims, the submission said 90 per cent of the migrants were Muslims and that a high percentage were illiterate and unskilled.

The officials had warned that many refugees were misrepresenting their background during interviews in "deliberate attempts to conceal vital information", Mr MacKellar reported.

And he said most of the applicants were being sponsored by relatives living in Sydney's southwest, where overcrowding was emerging along with evidence that husbands were leaving wives and children "without adequate support" to travel to Lebanon seeking displaced relatives.
 
malaysia doesn't do permanent resettlement (it already has 100s of thousands of asylum seekers/refugees and millions of illegal immigrants)

it'd probably be a rebranding of Labors old plan unless there is a titanic shift in malaysian policy. (the old people swap plan was already quite unpopular amongst malaysians and the backflip was a huge slap in the face)
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top