|
sir prince duke alevine
|
____ wrote on Jul 26 th, 2013 at 4:13pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26 th, 2013 at 4:01pm: ____ wrote on Jul 26 th, 2013 at 3:51pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26 th, 2013 at 3:47pm: ____ wrote on Jul 26 th, 2013 at 3:40pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26 th, 2013 at 3:36pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jul 26 th, 2013 at 3:32pm: Human rights group Amnesty International has condemned Australia’s actions, claiming the country is not fulfilling its moral obligations.
"Mark this day in history as the day Australia decided to turn its back on the world's most vulnerable people, closed the door and threw away the key," hardly one to talk about morals, no? Attacking the messenger. Oh please, the argument of humane vs inhumane is long gone. Is it inhumane to place smokescreens up? Yes. Is it humane to encourage people to come by people smuggler? No. What is needed, as I've said before, is an approach that places deterrents on using a people smuggler, but at the same time provides incentives to reigster for processing with UNHCR. That's humane. The Greens Approach, Inhumane. If you are just worried about people making a profit from providing a service then do what any decent capitalist would do. Let Australia set up in competition. Seaworthy vessels, cheaper prices and cut the processing time verses the leaky boat service. The current boat transporter's business model would sink overnight. And that just shows how delusional the greens have become. You can of course setup processes where you could simply grant visas to asylum seekers from Indonesia to Australia. But Australia has its limits, and while I do agree that we aren't at our limits at the moment, to simply allow a "come one come all" policy can very much leave our system completely vulnerable. And it's not just about the fact that "Australia can't take them all" that the right argues, but simply that even if we were to take all, our processes won't hold out and will buckle. And all that will happen is we'll end up with an underclass, made up of the most vulnerable. Which is something I Don't want to see. I know the Greens like to live in la la land, but reality tells us that we simply can't leave the system unchecked. And what we need to do IS put together an orderly process that helps as much as it can, in a REALISTIC world. Hence why your idea of providing competition to people smugglers won't work. Of course the other reason being that competition means the other still exists, and still kills. Get to reality. Stop living in dream land because you aren't actually helping anyone doing it. Instead, argue alongside those of us who say "Yes, put in a deterrent to end people smugglers. But also put in the processes to speed up processing from Indonesia." Because everyone forgets that just because you stop 3000 a month gettin gon a boat doesn't mean they don't exist anymore: those 3000 PER MONTH will end up as either stateless or in a UNHCR processing centre that is budgeted to handle 1600 PER YEAR. You have just revealed you don't care about refugees drowning in leaky boats, you don't care about stamping out your supposed people smugglers and you don't support humane treatment of refugees. As for come one come all, what number limit does the old parties have on people smuggled in on tourist visas? and you seem to have become more deluded than your beloved Greens. Perhaps if you'd like to step outside of the greens fairy land, and re-read my post?
|
Forum
Pages: 
