Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[alexandertnt]

I don't really want rioters in this country.

Some of them "riot". And they do so with a reason. That reason is to do with their detention, they just dont do it because they exist. Its not like they would go out on the street and start rioting for the hell of it if they were in the country.

Biting the hand that feeds you

 

[kingfisher1112]

They sat down and put up with our mistreatment for years, they protested but nobody listened, and then when they have had enough you decide that is reason enough to throw them away...

Doing the minimal to keep these people alive does not justify abuse of human rights. If I was treated the way these people are, and nobody wanted to hear my peaceful protest, I would riot too!

Except here's the thing: They know full well that they'll be detained in a detention centre for indefinite amounts of time. They know full well it's dangerous and that we hold no responsibility if they drown. And they still come here. And then riot when the things they knew come true. Also, just looked through the UN human rights charter. No violations from the camps.

I don't really want rioters in this country.

Some of them "riot". And they do so with a reason. That reason is to do with their detention, they just dont do it because they exist. Its not like they would go out on the street and start rioting for the hell of it if they were in the country.

Biting the hand that feeds you

 

But they probably would riot. Instead of keeping their mouth shut and waiting for their eventual relocation, they riot and then get praised as brave heroes. It's all about associations. They rioted that one time and people agreed, let's do it again!

[alexandertnt]

But they probably would riot ... It's all about associations. They rioted that one time and people agreed, let's do it again!

because some people agreed with their actions in that circumstance, they would riot again in this country (ignoring their original motive)? Exactly how intelligent to you think refugees are?

keeping their mouth shut

How would you know of any wrongdoing if they keep their mouth shut. Why should the fact that they are being detained stop them from speaking up?

[kingfisher1112]

But they probably would riot ... It's all about associations. They rioted that one time and people agreed, let's do it again!

because some people agreed with their actions in that circumstance, they would riot again in this country (ignoring their original motive)? Exactly how intelligent to you think refugees are?

keeping their mouth shut

How would you know of any wrongdoing if they keep their mouth shut. Why should the fact that they are being detained stop them from speaking up?

Alright then, less "keeping their mouths shut" and more about rioting. It's a bad thing they did. It's a bad thing that's likely going to happen again. The whole reasoning makes no sense. " Yes, we've been in here for ages, let's riot and be here longer!"

And yes, (most likely) would approach a different situation with the same methods that worked last time. Let's just say you fry an egg. You use a particular technique, and it works well. Do you then use the same technique or the one you tried before that didn't work?

[alexandertnt]

Let's just say you fry an egg. You use a particular technique, and it works well. Do you then use the same technique or the one you tried before that didn't work?

In a hypothetical world, Now they are in Australia and have had their issues addressed, there is no more egg to fry.

The whole reasoning makes no sense. " Yes, we've been in here for ages, let's riot and be here longer!"

It makes plenty of sense. To use your metaphor: "This egg isnt frying (fair treatment/actual asylum), lets try a different technique".

[kingfisher1112]

Let's just say you fry an egg. You use a particular technique, and it works well. Do you then use the same technique or the one you tried before that didn't work?

In a hypothetical world, Now they are in Australia and have had their issues addressed, there is no more egg to fry.

The whole reasoning makes no sense. " Yes, we've been in here for ages, let's riot and be here longer!"

It makes plenty of sense. To use your metaphor: "This egg isnt frying (fair treatment/actual asylum), lets try a different technique".

Ah yes, there will be no problems for new immigrants. Nope, no problems faced by any normal Australian at all. None. They'll just be perfectly content. Just like they were with their high-quality centre with a much higher quality of life then where they came from.

So, here's their logic:
If we riot, we will instantly be set free!
Or: If we riot, cause the government millions in damage, better conditions!
Or: If we riot, the Australians will respect us so much!

And even worse, you have the problem of ethnic enclaves. I.e, Muslim immigrants will want Shairah law, which is generally a very very bad idea to have. Basically, people will clump together into groups of their own people. And that's bad.

[Reudh]

Let's just say you fry an egg. You use a particular technique, and it works well. Do you then use the same technique or the one you tried before that didn't work?

In a hypothetical world, Now they are in Australia and have had their issues addressed, there is no more egg to fry.

The whole reasoning makes no sense. " Yes, we've been in here for ages, let's riot and be here longer!"

It makes plenty of sense. To use your metaphor: "This egg isnt frying (fair treatment/actual asylum), lets try a different technique".

Ah yes, there will be no problems for new immigrants. Nope, no problems faced by any normal Australian at all. None. They'll just be perfectly content. Just like they were with their high-quality centre with a much higher quality of life then where they came from.

So, here's their logic:
If we riot, we will instantly be set free!
Or: If we riot, cause the government millions in damage, better conditions!
Or: If we riot, the Australians will respect us so much!

And even worse, you have the problem of ethnic enclaves. I.e, Muslim immigrants will want Shairah law, which is generally a very very bad idea to have. Basically, people will clump together into groups of their own people. And that's bad.

If you're going to make a generalisation, at least bother to spell things correctly.

It's only a very, very few who want Shari'a law, and it's not going to happen. Moreover: anecdote time: I've not seen much issue with migrants clumping together. If you're new, of course you want to stay in a group which feels familiar? And it's only bad if it causes major social friction, ie. entire areas being off-limits.

The issue with rioting is caused by frustration, and I'm not saying it's justified at all.

Why they riot, is that being cooped up is generally not conducive to a healthy psyche.

[kingfisher1112]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/most-muslims-want-sharia-law/story-e6frg6so-1226632767364
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-05-17/muslim-group-wants-sharia-law-in-australia/2717096
Only a minority eh?

[Jimmy]

If they want freedom from persecution, let them have it. They just can't have it in the country of their choice, ahead of those who have applied for asylum through legitimate channels.

The United States of America was a shining example of an open border policy during its founding years. English fleeing persecution from the crown, then Europeans from protestant persecution and reduced work due to industrialization, then the Irish potato famine, etc. The nation was a wild frontier, offering a hard, desperate life in exchange for safety from the troubles of their home nation. Hundreds of thousands died during the trip and after arriving, but many more made a life for themselves in their new country, and contributed to its prosperity.

I think the PNG solution offers similar benefits. Why not give them a chance to carve a raw piece of untamed wild into a new beginning? The benefits for PNG as a nation are clear in terms of growth and development. On the other hand, Australia has the advantage of selecting from among those seeking to enter our country the ones that have a greater amount to offer our nation, such as skilled labor and minimal health problems. We all know we face the trouble of an aging baby boomer population that will continue to increase the amount of health resources consumed while simultaneously reducing the taxable workforce when retiring. Let's increase the number of young, healthy, skilled workers entering the country to compensate, and offer the rest a new life and a chance to help build the nation of PNG.

[Max White]

Except here's the thing: They know full well that they'll be detained in a detention centre for indefinite amounts of time. They know full well it's dangerous and that we hold no responsibility if they drown. And they still come here. And then riot when the things they knew come true. Also, just looked through the UN human rights charter. No violations from the camps.

Do you mean to imply they had a choice? They escape are escaping war zones, this doesn't mean they should just be content with what ever treatment that is handed to them. This isn't about them drowning on the way over, that exists parallel to our treatment of refugees that make the trip. Even if they knew things wouldn't be great, that doesn't mean they can't expect better.

Also
Article 5, on the basis that lack of engaging activity is a type of torture.
An argument could be made for article 9.
Article 10 on the basis that we treat boat people differently from those that arrive by plane, therefor not granting them fair hearing.
Article 13 as we are detaining these people within a camp without criminal charge.
Article four fucking teen.
Article 23 as we provide no employment options to people detained without charge.
An argument could be made for article 25 in regard to necessary social services.
Article 26 big fucking time.
Article 27 as we limit access to these benefits.

[alexandertnt]

Ah yes, there will be no problems for new immigrants. Nope, no problems faced by any normal Australian at all.

Ah yes, that was after all exactly what I was saying. I never said anythng about "normal" Australians either in my arguments, dont move the goal posts.

So, here's their logic:
If we riot, we will instantly be set free!
Or: If we riot, cause the government millions in damage, better conditions!
Or: If we riot, the Australians will respect us so much!

All you did was list 3 strawmen. Are you sure that is not just your logic projected onto them?

Muslim immigrants will want Shairah law

And the ones who dont (they do exist, believe it or not) get detained anyway because all those Muslims want Shairah law?

on the basis that we treat boat people differently from those that arrive by plane

Australians seem OK with the ones that come by plane for some reason, they must be more civilised

[Reudh]

Kingfisher: 'a majority'

12% in turkey (last I checked, 12% wasn't a majority)
99% in afghanistan
56% in tunisia


Where exactly does Australia come into this? It doesn't mention Australia once in this article.
With regard to the second article, that's a single, small council. Ain't gonna happen.

Both of those articles are far too weak to support your argument.

[Jimmy]

Your rights change dramatically when you're under arrest, Max White. When you are detained for a "reasonable time" until a judge can hear your case, with no maximum specified on this time. In this case, the people who have unlawfully violated our borders in an attempt to seek asylum are held until their case can be reviewed. Given their numbers and the fact that many more are ahead of them in the queue that have applied lawfully, detention camps are the only option.

In the case of people who arrive by plane, they have presented all the legal documents required for entry into our country. Thus, no problems. Don't break the law, you won't be arrested.

[Max White]

Are these people under arrest now?
Including the children?

[kingfisher1112]

Except here's the thing: They know full well that they'll be detained in a detention centre for indefinite amounts of time. They know full well it's dangerous and that we hold no responsibility if they drown. And they still come here. And then riot when the things they knew come true. Also, just looked through the UN human rights charter. No violations from the camps.

Do you mean to imply they had a choice? They escape are escaping war zones, this doesn't mean they should just be content with what ever treatment that is handed to them. This isn't about them drowning on the way over, that exists parallel to our treatment of refugees that make the trip. Even if they knew things wouldn't be great, that doesn't mean they can't expect better.

Also
Article 5, on the basis that lack of engaging activity is a type of torture.
An argument could be made for article 9.
Article 10 on the basis that we treat boat people differently from those that arrive by plane, therefor not granting them fair hearing.
Article 13 as we are detaining these people within a camp without criminal charge.
Article four fucking teen.
Article 23 as we provide no employment options to people detained without charge.
An argument could be made for article 25 in regard to necessary social services.
Article 26 big fucking time.
Article 27 as we limit access to these benefits.

Art 5: It ain't. If so, then detention in schools shouldn't be allowed.
Art 10: No, we treat people who have committed a criminal offence, twice, differently.
Art 13: See above.
Art 14: It's escaping from a criminal offence, not asylum. Can you hop into say the Mexican embassy when you commit an offence and avoid criminal charges? Nope.
Art 23: Only temporary.
Art 26: Again, only temporary. By the same token, no suspension should be allowed in schools.
Art 27: Again again, only temporary. Also, they can't talk amongst themselves, Y'know, because that's the community that they are living in?

Kingfisher: 'a majority'

12% in turkey (last I checked, 12% wasn't a majority)
99% in afghanistan
56% in tunisia


Where exactly does Australia come into this? It doesn't mention Australia once in this article.
With regard to the second article, that's a single, small council. Ain't gonna happen.

Both of those articles are far too weak to support your argument.

All those countries have a rising or high Muslim population. Ours is rising slowly, and it will be one more pronounced with time.

Ah yes, there will be no problems for new immigrants. Nope, no problems faced by any normal Australian at all.

Ah yes, that was after all exactly what I was saying. I never said anythng about "normal" Australians either in my arguments, dont move the goal posts.

So, here's their logic:
If we riot, we will instantly be set free!
Or: If we riot, cause the government millions in damage, better conditions!
Or: If we riot, the Australians will respect us so much!

All you did was list 3 strawmen. Are you sure that is not just your logic projected onto them?

Muslim immigrants will want Shairah law

And the ones who dont (they do exist, believe it or not) get detained anyway because all those Muslims want Shairah law?

on the basis that we treat boat people differently from those that arrive by plane

Australians seem OK with the ones that come by plane for some reason, they must be more civilised

1: Once they settle there, and of course by the regular definition of normal australian, you assume they will have no problems that will unsettle them when they move here. Nothing worth getting excited about. They'll just be incredibly content, and they'll never have to speak up at all ever again. Nope nope nope.
2: Explain to me how I was wrong in how faulty the logic was. Rioting advances no causes of theirs and only caused trouble for the whole system.
3: See above. We've gone over how 2nd generation immigrants is where shit really hits the fan In previous threads.
4: Because they are willing to go through legal channels?

Also, state a better solution than camps with very good living conditions in comparison to their old lives. Please, I'd love to hear it.