OK - but you will see that what I've posted on this issue - having studied it at Uni BTW - is very supportive and accommodating towards those who really desire to come here.

That said - you have to come to the understanding that politicians make their decisions based on (partly) their idea of what is best - and they do this from the POV that they - and they alone - have access to all the facts, including the views of all the competing agencies and groups that weigh into the argument.

Thus it is unlikely that their view will accord with that of the general public to any great degree - since they are also (more than) influenced by the security agencies, border people, armed forces and so forth in their decision making.

What we DO need here is a clear statement of genuine intent from one side or the other that actually opposes what the other part of the Tag Team advocates - so that We, The People (you may have guessed that I am a populist republican by now) are offered the privilege

(**coughs - blows froth off top of beer** - in a democracy the electorate is offered a privilege of deciding?)

of deciding for ourselves which way we would like this to proceed.

I - like you so very obviously are - am sick of hearing about death, fear, and loss on the high seas of desperate people who only want a better life.   

Oh - and we know which groups are under discussion when it comes to criminals and drug dealers etc....a past police commissioner here was castigated in the media and by a Labor government over precise comments that pointed the finger at them - even though that criminality is a well known fact - he wasn't allowed to say so.

That said - those groups were brought here under circumstances that were different - mainly that we as a country were not under clear and present danger from terrorism - and these people represented those from specifically war-torn countries and thus The Mighty Heart of True Australia was opened to them - WITHOUT adequate checks and balances.

Now what we are seeing is going the other way - and too hard and too far against those who are probably less to blame for their situation(s).

Historical footnote:-  I once co-commanded a mission to liberate two re-education camps near Saigon in 1978 - under the auspices of the family of the past head of the Saigon River Pilots under the old regime - whose family were being held for 're-education'...I understand how it was for so many of those people in their need to get out and come here - at first hand.  I also understand why so many had to turn to crime to make a living.......

(awaits knock on door at 3am over this disclosure).....

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 22^nd, 2012 at 9:54am:


Yawn. Another Emotionally Correct fapper.

What actual policy do you suggest? Let all comers in, no question asked?

If not, where would you draw the line? HOW would you draw the line? How would you ensure that people don't rort your policy?

Another 90 drown and you have no fooking idea. All you do, can do, want to do, is continue masturbating in public with your emotions exposed for all to see.  Grotesque.

Hmm - not sure about the way this discussion sometimes degenerates into personal attacks and personality disputes.  I guess that's the end of the Oz Politics Party as a viable political force!    Too much infighting!!

A policy..a policy...my kingdom for a policy!

Well - onshoring requires security and detention offers the opportunity to evaluate the personalities etc of prospective new citizens.  Question is where and how to do this.

So I guess the question is where and how to:-

a) bring refugees here,
b) maintain security for Oz,
c) provide humane and fair treatment.
d) alternatively provide refuge (in some cases) and processing offshore

My studies show that, most often, the burden is placed totally on a prospective refugee to make the effort to get to a place where he/she might receive refugee status - an onshore airport, an embassy, an agency and so forth.  I've had contacts from Iran asking how to go about this.

This is very difficult, but I can see no other viable way.

Every step of a refugee's path is fraught with danger in certain countries (no names), with betrayal and execution a very real possibility at any step of the way - and often, under the auspices of the UN adopted process, the very real danger that the 'homeland' process, which uses locals to do the initial processing in the potential refugees homeland, will result in betrayal, usury, blackmail and so forth.

Approaching a local embassy is probably the best - provided that embassy will actually do anything for the refugee, and not just send him/her back home.

Short of a proper internationally secured holding ground for refugees - which still requires that they arrive there under their own steam (often an impossibility), and which requires that all routes of access also be secured, and how far does that go? - the entire situation is unmanageable.

OK - back to our 'boat people' - our Navy/Air Force etc have carried out what are essentially humanitarian blocking moves for a long time now - remember that the Air Force launched a massive search for missing boats that went down with huge loss in a storm at great cost to Oz - we don't seem to stint on those costs when required, so perhaps funding a better in-country processing facility in Indonesia or whatever would be at least as cost-effective as rescuing boat people.

Just tossing around some ideas here, guys.  You may comment at will....

Soren wrote on Jun 25^th, 2012 at 11:08pm:



You do realise that asylum seekers are asked questions, don't you?

Quote:


the security methods that are being used are prolly sufficient. Need to streamline them a bit to get the time in detention down (we have longest in the world). Since the media stuffed up the police's case on that emad guy i expect some new policies have been brought in.Its not like they are going to tell us.

Maybe process them in indonesia. Why isnt that an option? Then we could fly them over if they are approved.

We have to take our fair share of refugees. We helped create them. We are way down the bottom of the list in how many we get/take.

SOB

So how is the refugee intake in those countries working out for them, or are we just supposed to just assume that more = better? 

LOL. 

Bronvonrort claims we took in 13 - 14,000 refugess in 2010.

SOB claims he's talking through his ass, but agrees with him in the very next breath.

He doesn't realise anything is wrong.

Everybody laughs....except SOB.