paulry

Because it'll result in everyone who wants to be resettled in Australia making a bee line for Indonesia.

paulry

Did it stop any boats?

keel

How come we had Labor saying for about 6 years that the boats couldn't be stopped then the coalition got in and now we have no boats and no deaths.

I think the Labor and Greens immigration ministers and shadow ministers should be up for manslaughter.

Keel

GarryP

Of course there have been boats, including boats that ended up in Darwin. What you haven't had is reporting being allowed. Add to that the illegal action of Tone in intercepting and sinking boats on the high seas (known as piracy) and it's a depressing failure, dressed up as success because they refuse to be open about events.

And then there's the international incidents.

All unforced, since the Rudd actions were the ones that were really cutting into the boat numbers.

If we are talking manslaughter trials, this is the one that has to happen first. Clear and continued breach of duty of care require for asylum seekers. The rap sheet is long an ignominious, including treaties, human rights, and yes, manslaughter.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-0...-death/5367118

Beoz

Too little too late Garry

I wonder how many on here actually believe in what they preach. 'Entering sovereign waters' 'its against UN rules' 'how would you feel if you needed to flee your country' etc etc.

Or its just a political vehicle for the lab / green lovers.

GarryP

The real point is the real problem isn't susceptible to easy fixes. Even the only effective thing that's been done, Rudd's processing change, is a temporary fix. Eventually it will either be ruled illegal (which it is) or circumvented.

Real fixes require real, global, action to deal with the problem at source.

All Tone has done is make things worse by pissing off the very country that's needed to stem the trade. Bang up job there from big ears.

paulry

There's no shortage of phony outrage on this thread.

Beoz

Firstly, you said its a problem. There's been those on this thread who have indicated there is not a problem and we should just let them all board boats and arrive at their leisure. Apparently that would be the humane thing to do.

How to fix? No idea. No one seems to have an idea. If there was an ideal solution this thread would not exist.

For now, I'll run with Tone's idea. I don't have the deep seeded hatred for Tone that you do. I'll put my faith with him .... For now. .... What other option do we have?

GarryP

What? Needlessly pissing off those that he needs onside, whilst achieving nothing and breaking numerous international treaties and laws in the process?

You think that's a good plan?

And if you are actually seeking to deal with the problem at source, one of the facets would be to have a proper human rights investigation into Sri Lanka and it's abuses (where many of the asylum seekers come from) rather than blocking it, as Tone has done.

Beoz

I think its a politically risky plan. But its a plan, and it's being put into effect. Meaning something is being done. Actions are happening rather than fannying around sitting on your hands like those leaders before him. Will it work ..... Well only time will tell.

Wol

Those treaties were drawn up in a completely different era, and things have changed dramatically since then. As one example the population then was under 3Bn; now it's over 7Bn. The worldwide pressures are totally different.

No-one has anything but the greatest sympathy for the tens - probably hundreds - of millions who could legitimately claim aysylum status. Calling people bogans or racists misses the point (as well as being offensive). The point is that the prime duty of a government is to protect it's citzens from external threats. I'm not saying that allowing large numbers of asylum seekers is necessarily a threat in the strict meaning of the word but it's potentially an economic one.

The real issue is how many such people can be accommodated without causing real problems. An no-one here has yet answered my original question: if you don't believe in unlimited migration, you have to set a limit. Just what is your plan when that limit is reached? I keep repeating myself, because I haven't had an answer. When the limit is reached, someone has to make the decision to prevent further attempts - which puts us right back to where we are now. And the larger the limit, the easier it will be for the people smugglers to slip boat people in, and the more will be drowned.

No-one said it was easy.

paulry

.

GarryP

As I intimated, the solution is to deal with the root of the problem - and that is governments which are unfit for purpose and thereby setup situations where someone can claim asylum in the first place. No cr*ppy governments > no asylum > no asylum seekers.

So the question then becomes, how do you enforce minimum standards on governments?

As far as I can see, step one is to set those standards (which will probably mean no theocracies, dictatorships, etc.) In this world it would no longer be acceptable to be on the top of the heap - to be a recognised leader you'd have to hit minimum acceptable standards. Those standards would probably be based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And those that don't reach the minimum?

Well, two actions that I can see. First total and complete embargoes. Nothing gets in, nothing gets out - and if necessary you bomb the cr*p out of anyone/anything that tries to break the blockade. Every country today needs some input/output - even North Korea. Second, decapitation strikes. If you don't meet the minimum standards, you can, and will, lose your head - as will your cronies. No getting away free for the politician at the top because other politicians want to be nice to them - your head is on the line.

General upshot of such a policy approach is less sh*thead politicians, less genocide, and an all round better world, except for despots and politicians (and I'm not about to weep for them).

Now, you are probably going to say this isn't viable (though it is) - but if you are, you have to deal with the reality that trying to keep asylum seekers out via Tone's approaches are both illegal and unworkable in the long term (I can work out several ways they can be defeated). Once people have started to move, you've already lost - so the status quo is what isn't a viable solution....

Wol

the troubadour

Australia is one of many countries where refuge is sought. With a clear queue in place it would take a considerable time to get in if numbers did mount up. Main issue would be if other nations would play ball.
Again why would developing world nations be required to be holding centres for many hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers while the rich world like Australia takes at leisure?

Better to look at the entire agreement for better ways at targeting those in desperate need of asylum.