by Q. » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:26 am
by scoob » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:43 am
Q. wrote:Increase our intake. Change our policy that links onshore placement with offshore placement (only country in the world that does this). We won't stop the boats (Nauru & TPVs never did and the Malaysian Solution won't), so current focuses on policy are completely misguided - focus on ways to ensure that only seaworthy boats are making the journey.
by Q. » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:55 am
by scoob » Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:58 am
Q. wrote:No. The policy of impounding and destroying boats has led to non-seaworthy boats being used. The policy should be to impound/destroy non-seaworthy boats and punish the operators of those boats.
God forbid we re-settle a few thousand refugees a year
by Jimmy_041 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 12:03 pm
by gossipgirl » Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:04 pm
by Q. » Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:25 pm
scoob wrote:Q. wrote:No. The policy of impounding and destroying boats has led to non-seaworthy boats being used. The policy should be to impound/destroy non-seaworthy boats and punish the operators of those boats.
God forbid we re-settle a few thousand refugees a year
So we should be encouraging refugees to make the trip by boat?
by Q. » Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:28 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Kill all boats I say - Let's make Qantas do some pro-bono work.
We would be the only country in the world actively aiding and abetting illegal immigration.
If one of their "good" recycled boats did sink, they'd probably sue us for allowing them to use an "unsafe" boat.
And the Coalition government did reduce the influx down to a trickle - Nauru did work.
It must have worked because all the pro-illegal immigration people hated it.
by Jimmy_041 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:37 pm
by Q. » Fri Jun 29, 2012 1:49 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:09 pm
by Q. » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:20 pm
by scoob » Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:37 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:I give in
It's no fun debating with someone that uses common sense and doesn't get upset.
I'm moving onto the SA Political Landscape topic - more fun there
by dedja » Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:31 pm
by Grahaml » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:14 pm
by Q. » Sun Jul 01, 2012 2:28 am
Grahaml wrote:Lol. Love those who don't understand the issues arguing with those who don't understand the issues. Nauru did work, anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot. Most refugees get settled because they aren't a problem. The issue is the number of boats coming and the safety of those boats. Malaysia is a one off flawed policy that the government likes because it isn't the policy the Libs had that worked. The Libs are sticking with the tried and true while the greens are pretending to be a major player but are being exposed for the jokes they are. Fancy that mob trying to govern with their inflexible policies. Hanson-Young balling up in parliament then not voting for any change shows her crocodile tears as far as I'm concerned. The government doesn't want to admit 5 years of being wrong, the opposition don't want a worse policy than their own (and don't see a reason to compromise since they're the opposition) and so we're left with status quo until the Libs win government.
Overall, Labor are doing a good job running the country, just not selling the job they're doing. On this though they are horribly wrong and Gillard is showing that she doesn't care about people as much as votes. A close friend who had worked with Julia said she would be a good PM because "she cares". Sadly, not enough.
by Psyber » Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:44 pm
I wonder what the budget would be for the "Malaysia solution" - if we can get over them being a non-signatory to the UN convention.Q. wrote: Nauru didn't 'work'. As many boats made the journey as before that policy.
It cost a billion a year to run and didn't 'stop the boats'.
by dedja » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:13 pm
Q. wrote:Nauru didn't 'work'. As many boats made the journey as before that policy.
It cost a billion a year to run and didn't 'stop the boats'.
by Q. » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:38 pm
dedja wrote:Q. wrote:Nauru didn't 'work'. As many boats made the journey as before that policy.
It cost a billion a year to run and didn't 'stop the boats'.
There's 2 facts that are relevant to me here.
1. The number of asylum seekers processed each year, and a breakdown of how they got here (directly or indirectly in offshore processing centres, and boats vs air)
2. Of the total each year, what percentage were afforded asylum.
Can anyone help?
by dedja » Sun Jul 01, 2012 7:39 pm
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |