Print

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

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Could someone clarify on the specifics of Australian immigration law? I've heard things like whether you came in on a boat or a plane completely changing the methodology of the immigration process.

[nenjin]

You happy spending 7 years or more on Nauru in a prison while we 'process' you?

Find a breathy Australian woman to say that sentence sexily and the answer might be yes.

[Dsarker]

Yes.

If you come on a boat, you get deported to an offshore island and stuck in 'administrative detention', or jail, for 7 or more years.

If you come on a plane, they don't pay you any attention whatsoever.

[Fenrir]

Seriously? I thought your statement was a satircal mockery of USA immigration law.

[Dsarker]

Nope, that is completely serious. Look up the Tampa and Children Overboard to see what we aussies have been doing to immigrants recently.

[Heron TSG]

Seriously? I thought your statement was a satircal mockery of USA immigration law.

Of course not, if you're on a plane while immigrating to the US, you'll just disappear when the military calls you a terrorist. No need for jail time.

I hate Congress so much.

[Fenrir]

Dsarker, Wikipedia tells me that the Pacific Solution was abandoned, and that those detained are, in most cases, free to return to their country of origin. Is this true?

Barbarossa, while that may happen on occasion, I do not expect that such represents US immigration policy in any significant way.

[Dsarker]

In the sense that while they're free to return to their countries of origin, 99% of them are legitimate refugees, and that they've moved the jail from Nauru to Christmas Island? And that the 'processing' is taking an inordinate amount of time?

Yes.

[Fenrir]

One can only wonder why I supposed that I could contribute further to a conversation about a foreign country after reading a handful of Wikipedia summaries.

[Dsarker]

Wikipedia's reasonably accurate. We don't have the Pacific solution at the moment, though that might change soon. We were going to have a Malaysian Solution, but that was before the High Court nixed it because it was unconstitutional.

[Truean]

Name one situation in which the pilot has to access the passenger section.

When he has a heart attack and the fight attendant has to ask if a doctor is on board. Haven't you seen any of those cheesy movies where someone has to land the plane while being talked down by air traffic control? It does happen now and again.

Also, the captain comes back in the case of an questionable passenger. The captain legally has full and final control of the plane and all on it. If the captain says you're off, then you are. Unfortunately they've renumbered the federal law about this one and I haven't looked at it since law school, otherwise I'd cite it.

As for all that Dutch stuff  earlier, thanks. It's given me something to think about, though I'm still skeptical, I can't just throw it aside either.

[sneakey pete]

So the minimum detention time for processing is 7 years... source? I mean sure it takes time, probably to much time, but 7 years minimum? pah.

Not to mention, only people who aren't refugees will be returned to their country of origin (after said to long but probably not 7 year long process). We're not deporting legitimate refugees.
Also not to mention that that processing will all be moved on shore in the near future.

[justinlee999]

Wikipedia's reasonably accurate. We don't have the Pacific solution at the moment, though that might change soon. We were going to have a Malaysian Solution, but that was before the High Court nixed it because it was unconstitutional.

Well immigrants don't exactly have a good life here, so I guess there's a reason why the High Court dumped it.

[Jashugan]

So I'm trying to sort out this senate bill for myself so I can understand it better but it might as well be a foreign language.  I've seen some articles referring to a bill called H.R.1540, which seems to be the "main" "National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012" bill.  I went through that one briefly but cant find anything like what people are talking about.  However there are other bills with the exact same name.  One being S.1867 which has a section 1031 and 1032 which I think is what people are talking about.  So what is the difference between these two and why?  Which is the "real deal" as it were?  Any congressional scholars here that could help me out?



And since I read all nine pages, I'm adding my thoughts, even if I am a couple days late and the conversation is over.  Sorry but theres a lot to respond to so this could be a bit long: 
This business about sacrificing freedom to get security being wrong is nonsense talk.  People have willingly joined together in groups, formed governments, made laws, organized police, and put others in power over themselves for all of human history, because the security gained was deemed worth the sacrifice of freedom.  The ever present issue (and the current one) of course is just how much of our freedom we're willing to give - and what choice we have in the matter.  Do you lock your door when you are not home?  Do you want the police to be able to arrest burglars?  You are now sacrificing your freedom for more security.  Yes of course I think we should have organizations and programs to assist would-be burglars to keep them from commiting crime in the first place, but because I support the one does not mean I am not going to lock my door when I am not home.  Yes I wish there were no burglars, but through no action of mine, there are, and so I have to sacrifice my freedom because of them.  But, I expect groups who have power over the rights of citizens to behave responsibly and ensure my freedoms while taking away the freedoms of those who harm me or others.

Any of the security you have to go through now to get on a plane and any you may have grown up with and were used to, such as a metal detector and perhaps the wary scrutiny of an airport police officer did not originally exist.  They all came to be because at some point within the past several decades, someone realized "I can use the current vulnerability of air travel to put people's lives in danger to get what I want."  That is important to remember.  Someone pointed out to me once that the attitude of a passenger to a plane hijacking has now changed.  Used to be the general feeling was that if your plane was hjiacked, you sat quietly and spent a weekend in a foreign country and were home safe in a few days.  But some maladjusted folks went and changed that and the stakes are much higher now and the response is much different.

And its not just about the number of people who die from plane related terrorism either.  Aside from the fact that no response to a successful terrorist attack (using an airplane or otherwise) would only be a neon sign advertising the success of future similar attacks, think about the impact it has on the economy, government, and even individuals.  If the average citizen loses that degree of certainty that the plane is a safe way to travel, or if airlines decided that flying planes wasnt monetarily worth the investment, imagine the repercussions.  And lets say we dont have government operated security for air travel.  Then airlines would surely establish their own private security and screening systems.  I think you can easily imagine "Fly Delta, we have the best security!".  The private security would probably then need to be regulated by law anyways.

So are the regulations too much and is goverment overreacting and affecting our freedoms too much?  Yes.  Whats the appropriate solution?  I wish I knew, but I do know its not "The American goverment are nazis!"  "Its a government conspiracy to make us live in a police state!" or perhaps "We should have no security at all!".  All of those things are vastly over-simplified, incorrect, and completely unhelpful responses to an ever-changing, ever-present, and ever-complicated problem.  Everybody wants an easy solution, but the fact is, there are none.  Maybe there was a time when people had different freedoms or more freedoms, but the rise of technology has enabled the individual to become much, much more deadly and impactful with a suddeness.  How we deal with that is extremely important, but also very tricky.

[SalmonGod]

And its not just about the number of people who die from plane related terrorism either.  Aside from the fact that no response to a successful terrorist attack (using an airplane or otherwise) would only be a neon sign advertising the success of future similar attacks, think about the impact it has on the economy, government, and even individuals.

I have to disagree here.  The success of a terrorist attack doesn't lie in the attack itself.  Nobody decides "I'm going to hijack a plane and crash it into some buildings, just because I think I can get away with it."  They're looking for a reaction.  What they really want is an overreaction.  They want to drive people crazy.  It's called terrorism because it's meant to damage the fabric of society through fear.  The fact that it has done this is a neon sign advertising the success of terrorism.

And I don't think they even need to succeed.  Even getting caught attempting only reinforces people's fears that attempts are being made, and law enforcement will advertise every single case to reinforce their own legitimacy -- "See?!  We got another one!  More strip searches for everyone!  We can't take any chances!"  Terrorists have more reason now than ever to try again, because they literally cannot fail at their goal, even if they fail at the act.

And its not just about the number of people who die from plane related terrorism either.

And this is more important than you give credit to.  It's completely irrational to fear terrorism, when the number of people who die in terrorist attacks is vastly overshadowed by less sensational and more preventable causes of death.  The effort and worry that we as individuals and as a national entity put into combating terrorism only causes more problems for us than it resolves.  I'm much much much more likely to suffer serious harm at the hands of law enforcement than I was before, when the threat of harm via terrorist attack was and still is probably statistically as likely as getting abducted by aliens.  It also drains our attentions and resources from far more pressing issues such as stress, environment, hunger, etc. 

Maybe there was a time when people had different freedoms or more freedoms, but the rise of technology has enabled the individual to become much, much more deadly and impactful with a suddeness.  How we deal with that is extremely important, but also very tricky.

This works both ways, though.  Technology also enables authority to be more far reaching, invasive, and invulnerable.

I'm still undecided as to whether this provision is as bad as everyone says.  I'm giving it more attention, since the hysteria over it only seems to be growing.  Either way, I'm feeling an ever more pressing need to get the hell out of this country.