BF2S Forums Australian politics thread.

Reactionary policy.

Labor MP Stephen Jones pretty much summed it up when he said despite being against offshore processing himself yesterday's boat wreck made him feel that something, anything needs to be done. Doing 'anything' to combat a problem isn't intelligent policy. Tony Abbott's right, it won't and shouldn't pass the Senate because it isn't good legislation. Not that he's offering anything better of course.

One thing I've never quite understood about the debate on asylum seekers, so much emphasis seems to be placed on creating disincentives for asylum seekers so they don't take the journey in the first place. That's one of the major things about offshore processing isn't it? The commonwealth expects that asylum seekers will know that if they come to Australia by boat they'll just be sent somewhere else, ergo they won't try, (because asylum seekers are known for their vigorous research into Australian domestic policy.)

But if you need an incentive why doesn't "your boat may sink and you will be smashed against rocks" suffice? If not that then why not "you will be held in mandatory detention for ten times longer than you would if you went literally anywhere else"? There are more than enough incentives. Do you really think people smugglers are going to be fully informing their potential passengers about their chances anyway?

To be honest I think the best policy is to ensure detention centres and the Department of Immigration have the resources they need to be incredibly prompt with their processing of asylum seekers. At the moment it takes them far too long and new detention centres are being built to house their gigantic 'to do' pile. This shouldn't happen. Other countries deal with more asylum seekers, other countries deal with them faster. If they are found to be legitimate then let 'em in, if not, send 'em back. Fuck this "stop the boats" crap, especially if you have no plans for dealing with the boats that will inevitably come. Word of mouth to create a widespread understanding works better than "well maybe if we had this domestic policy they'd leave us alone." Does anyone really think that some desperate immigrant knows Australia's immigration policy? I don't know Australia's immigration policy. I don't even know New Zealand's immigration policy. So process them quickly, send them back if required and let them tell fellow potential immigrants what the situation really is.

Maybe that's a little naive but I think Parliament's current circle-jerk over offshore processing is going nowhere and I think it's be best for rational thought and good policy-making if they start over instead of starting from this presumption that offshore processing is the be-all and end-all of asylum seeker policy.

Also, funny aside, covering an interview with Joanna Gash about yesterday's policy making and the Malaysia solution. She blurted out "I wouldn't send my dog to Malaysia!" and immediately apologised. OOOoh. I wonder who'll be petty enough to claim this was a racial slur, (me, I am.)

Jaekus wrote:

Ty wrote:

Does anyone really think that some desperate immigrant knows Australia's immigration policy? I don't know Australia's immigration policy. I don't even know New Zealand's immigration policy. So process them quickly, send them back if required and let them tell fellow potential immigrants what the situation really is.

Man I've been saying this for years. It's such basic logic yet so many seem to miss the point. I hate being surrounded by stupid people.

being ignorant of the law does not allow you to break the law.

im pretty sure most "desperate immigrants" know enough about a visa and passport etc. I know lots of legally immigrated indonesians and they seem to understand the process enough.

Jaekus wrote:

It's not illegal to seek asylum.

so i can just go to any country i want, rip my passport at the airport and claim asylum and its all good right? ok.

Cybargs wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

It's not illegal to seek asylum.

so i can just go to any country i want, rip my passport at the airport and claim asylum and its all good right? ok.

Of course. If you feel unsafe in your own country you can do this.

Does the word asylum somehow not make sense to you?

Cybargs wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

It's not illegal to seek asylum.

so i can just go to any country i want, rip my passport at the airport and claim asylum and its all good right? ok.

Sure. If you're an Afghan for example, fleeing your country because you're fearful of AQ is very legitimate.

In case you haven't noticed though, none of these people are arriving via plane. That's the whole point.

Dilbert_X wrote:

So every Afghan has the right to move somewhere nicer?

wow you're stupid. srsly

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So every Afghan has the right to move somewhere nicer?

wow you're stupid. srsly

So whats your suggestion?

If being scared of AQ is legitimate grounds for asylum in Australia who doesn't have the right to come here?

nono clearly they came here because they wanted to be rich, right?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Spark wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

So every Afghan has the right to move somewhere nicer?

wow you're stupid. srsly

So whats your suggestion?

If being scared of AQ is legitimate grounds for asylum in Australia who doesn't have the right to come here?

It was just for sake of discussion not a real life example.

You're about a big a troll account as lowing was.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Is the cultural revolution happening now?

We're talking about asylum seekers now.

no but her grandparents were targeted by the chinese government and now her grandma can't enter China due to her affiliation with the falun dafa.

most lulziest fuck up for aussie gov was handing out PR's to any legitimate resident visa holders (student, work etc..) after the Tienanmen square incident, and thats how my gf's mom got pr lol. 

spark: well my gf's aunt in China is richer than her mom who came to aussie xD

What I think is important is that our politicians enjoy their well-earned rest and come back refreshed and energised to get  fuck-all useful done again.

With whom?

WITH WHOM?