Europe submits voluntarily

[bigfield]

Where are the gas chambers and the bodies? These are detention centres. The message is to make regular migration more advantageous and illegal migration by smugglers in order to bypass the legal process, a no go area for processing.

It is not illegal to arrive in Australian waters and ask for asylum.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Where are the gas chambers and the bodies? These are detention centres. The message is to make regular migration more advantageous and illegal migration by smugglers in order to bypass the legal process, a no go area for processing.

It is not illegal to arrive in Australian waters and ask for asylum.

Australia is not refusing to process Asylum seekers. It doesn't want people just swarming in without proper checks through customs and not simply landing on the shores anywhere. Most now are not asylum seekers but economic migrants who are different countries All countries have a right to ensure that people are only processed through border check points. For Asylum seekers there are additional procedures.
many do not even want to apply for Asylum. It seems the Australians provided better standards of accommodation to its refugees than Europe in that many had to simply sleep in tents when they arrived.

 

[bigfield]

It is not illegal to arrive in Australian waters and ask for asylum.

Australia is not refusing to process Asylum seekers.

Yes, it is. People are arriving in Australian waters, asking for asylum, and we are throwing them in concentration camps indefinitely.

It doesn't want people just swarming in without proper checks through customs and not simply landing on the shores anywhere.

That demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of both Australian public opinion and government policy. The 'stop the boats' policy was and remains a response to growing xenophobia towards refugees, fuelled by misinformation and plain old bogan racism.

Besides, nobody lands on the fucking shores--the Navy picks them up right as they enter territorial waters.

Most now are not asylum seekers but economic migrants who are different countries

The overwhelming majority (~90%) of asylum seekers processed by the Department of Immigration (or Border Farce of whatever they are called now) are found to be genuine refugees.

All countries have a right to ensure that people are only processed through border check points.

Australia has an obligation under UN convention to process asylum seekers regardless of how they arrive; that is what we agreed to.

For Asylum seekers there are additional procedures.

Duh.

many do not even want to apply for Asylum. It seems the Australians provided better standards of accommodation to its refugees than Europe in that many had to simply sleep in tents when they arrived.

Clearly you know jack shit about Boat People.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Australia is not refusing to process Asylum seekers.

Yes, it is. People are arriving in Australian waters, asking for asylum, and we are throwing them in concentration camps indefinitely.

It doesn't want people just swarming in without proper checks through customs and not simply landing on the shores anywhere.

That demonstrates a stunning lack of understanding of both Australian public opinion and government policy. The 'stop the boats' policy was and remains a response to growing xenophobia towards refugees, fuelled by misinformation and plain old bogan racism.

Besides, nobody lands on the fucking shores--the Navy picks them up right as they enter territorial waters.

Most now are not asylum seekers but economic migrants who are different countries

The overwhelming majority (~90%) of asylum seekers processed by the Department of Immigration (or Border Farce of whatever they are called now) are found to be genuine refugees.

All countries have a right to ensure that people are only processed through border check points.

Australia has an obligation under UN convention to process asylum seekers regardless of how they arrive; that is what we agreed to.

For Asylum seekers there are additional procedures.

Duh.

many do not even want to apply for Asylum. It seems the Australians provided better standards of accommodation to its refugees than Europe in that many had to simply sleep in tents when they arrived.

Clearly you know jack shit about Boat People.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28189608


Asylum seekers have attempted to reach Australia on boats from Indonesia, often paying large sums of money to people smugglers. Hundreds have died making the dangerous journey.

ALSO
Australia granted close to 13,800 refugee visas between 2013 and 2014. It granted about 20,000 visas between 2012 and 2013

ALSO
The government says the journey the asylum seekers make is dangerous and controlled by criminal gangs, and they have a duty to stop it.

For once I would agree with most of what the BBC says. Soft Western policies have led to a boom in a highly lucrative human trafficking in rickety boats where thousands have died. Of course the West is blamed for this.

It also shows Australia is processing genuine cases and per the article and seems to be booting out non genuine cases. Many Arab countries have closed the borders to immigrants from the Middle East. However many are pouring out of the failed states in Asia to claim asylum or simply to try and enter the various host countries unnoticed. Who is to blame these people if there is an opportunity to do so?

 

[DrZoidberg]

A problem with being a refugee is that the escape from the country can be pretty random and haphazard. They may only escape with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Many are robbed along the way. Perhaps don't even have a toothbrush. This means that countries receiving refugees will have to take that into account. If they don't they should just be honest about it and stop pretending they give a shit about other people. 148/189 countries have signed the UN refugee charter. All civilised countries pretty much.

Yeah, it sucks that economic migrants are taking advantage of the Syrian plight and "getting in on the action". But that's not the fault of the Syrians. Not only do they need our help, we've signed a contract to where we said we'd help. Time to stop shirking responsibility. Even islamophobes and racists have entered into that agreement through their countries. So, tough luck. Just man up.

 

[angelo]

Where are the gas chambers and the bodies? These are detention centres. The message is to make regular migration more advantageous and illegal migration by smugglers in order to bypass the legal process, a no go area for processing.

It is not illegal to arrive in Australian waters and ask for asylum.

Well it should be and the high court agrees with it!

 

[whichphilosophy]

A problem with being a refugee is that the escape from the country can be pretty random and haphazard. They may only escape with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Many are robbed along the way. Perhaps don't even have a toothbrush. This means that countries receiving refugees will have to take that into account. If they don't they should just be honest about it and stop pretending they give a shit about other people. 148/189 countries have signed the UN refugee charter. All civilised countries pretty much.

Yeah, it sucks that economic migrants are taking advantage of the Syrian plight and "getting in on the action". But that's not the fault of the Syrians. Not only do they need our help, we've signed a contract to where we said we'd help. Time to stop shirking responsibility. Even islamophobes and racists have entered into that agreement through their countries. So, tough luck. Just man up.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia didn't of course didn't sign any such charter. Their doors are closed but they are providing economic aid. The ones who come on ships will have paid their traffickers thousands (even $20,000) for a boat trip. I am sure that some migrants have robbed them. After all with no border checks what's to stop criminals coming in.

Few are disputing the refugee crisis of those in war torn zones but accepting people bailing (out) from failed economic states is not an obligation.

 

[bigfield]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-28189608

Asylum seekers have attempted to reach Australia on boats from Indonesia, often paying large sums of money to people smugglers. Hundreds have died making the dangerous journey.

This is commonly cited as justification for putting innocent people in indefinite detention under the guard of a criminally-negligent organisation.

But it is an evil solution despite the fact that Australia has better options to choose from. We chose this option because it satisfied public opinion.

ALSO
Australia granted close to 13,800 refugee visas between 2013 and 2014. It granted about 20,000 visas between 2012 and 2013

We should be accepting a minimum of 30,000 a year.

ALSO
The government says the journey the asylum seekers make is dangerous and controlled by criminal gangs, and they have a duty to stop it.

Their 'duty' does not require them to imprison innocent people in indefinite detention under the guard of a criminally-negligent organisation.

For once I would agree with most of what the BBC says. Soft Western policies have led to a boom in a highly lucrative human trafficking in rickety boats where thousands have died. Of course the West is blamed for this.

Those 'soft Western policies' enabled Australia to receive boatloads of Vietnamese refugees fleeing the war in their homeland. I want to be part of a society that places a high value on compassion and I'm sick of the lazy, entitled bogans who are incensed that some brown people might be paid a few cents of their taxes. (Ironically, offshore detention is the most expensive policy we could have chosen.)

It also shows Australia is processing genuine cases and per the article and seems to be booting out non genuine cases. Many Arab countries have closed the borders to immigrants from the Middle East. However many are pouring out of the failed states in Asia to claim asylum or simply to try and enter the various host countries unnoticed. Who is to blame these people if there is an opportunity to do so?

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...inment-centre-when-you-could-live-in-cambodia

 

[DrZoidberg]

A problem with being a refugee is that the escape from the country can be pretty random and haphazard. They may only escape with nothing but the clothes on their backs. Many are robbed along the way. Perhaps don't even have a toothbrush. This means that countries receiving refugees will have to take that into account. If they don't they should just be honest about it and stop pretending they give a shit about other people. 148/189 countries have signed the UN refugee charter. All civilised countries pretty much.

Yeah, it sucks that economic migrants are taking advantage of the Syrian plight and "getting in on the action". But that's not the fault of the Syrians. Not only do they need our help, we've signed a contract to where we said we'd help. Time to stop shirking responsibility. Even islamophobes and racists have entered into that agreement through their countries. So, tough luck. Just man up.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia didn't of course didn't sign any such charter. Their doors are closed but they are providing economic aid. The ones who come on ships will have paid their traffickers thousands (even $20,000) for a boat trip. I am sure that some migrants have robbed them. After all with no border checks what's to stop criminals coming in.

Few are disputing the refugee crisis of those in war torn zones but accepting people bailing (out) from failed economic states is not an obligation.

I did write "civilised country". Do you think Saudi Arabia qualifies?

Fun fact. Saudi Arabia has a tent camp outside Mecca for pilgrims on their hajj. It could house 100 000 refugees just like that. It's all prepared and set up already. Air con and everything. One would have thought that this would have been an excellent opportunity for "the leader" of the Islamic world to show a little brotherly love. One would be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina,_Saudi_Arabia

 

[bigfield]

It is not illegal to arrive in Australian waters and ask for asylum.

Well it should be and the high court agrees with it!

No, they don't.

Was there even a source for this ludicrous claim or did you hallucinate it?

 

[whichphilosophy]

It is not illegal to arrive in Australian waters and ask for asylum.

Well it should be and the high court agrees with it!

You cant avoid Australian waters if you apply for Asylum so this is absurd. However Australia has processed the applications outside of Australia because it outsourced the work.

p://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-35479173
The court rejected a challenge brought by lawyers for one detainee who argued the policy was unconstitutional.

The ruling paves the way for more than 250 people, including 37 babies, to be deported to a detention camp on the tiny Pacific island nation of Nauru.

PM Malcolm Turnbull said the borders had to be secure, and repeated the view that the policy prevents deaths.

You may be referring to this recent ruling which sounds reasonable and does not override the selection process.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...a/news-story/704be8a77a373502a9d16c3db84586bb
THE High Court has commanded Immigration Minister Peter Dutton to award permanent protection to a Pakistani asylum-seeker, ruling the government could not reject the refugee solely because he arrived by boat.
If the land in Australia and are caught they can still be shipped to one of the processing stations.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The UAE and Saudi Arabia didn't of course didn't sign any such charter. Their doors are closed but they are providing economic aid. The ones who come on ships will have paid their traffickers thousands (even $20,000) for a boat trip. I am sure that some migrants have robbed them. After all with no border checks what's to stop criminals coming in.

Few are disputing the refugee crisis of those in war torn zones but accepting people bailing (out) from failed economic states is not an obligation.

I did write "civilised country". Do you think Saudi Arabia qualifies?

Fun fact. Saudi Arabia has a tent camp outside Mecca for pilgrims on their hajj. It could house 100 000 refugees just like that. It's all prepared and set up already. Air con and everything. One would have thought that this would have been an excellent opportunity for "the leader" of the Islamic world to show a little brotherly love. One would be wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mina,_Saudi_Arabia

It could but will not.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is commonly cited as justification for putting innocent people in indefinite detention under the guard of a criminally-negligent organisation.

But it is an evil solution despite the fact that Australia has better options to choose from. We chose this option because it satisfied public opinion.

ALSO
Australia granted close to 13,800 refugee visas between 2013 and 2014. It granted about 20,000 visas between 2012 and 2013

We should be accepting a minimum of 30,000 a year.

ALSO
The government says the journey the asylum seekers make is dangerous and controlled by criminal gangs, and they have a duty to stop it.

Their 'duty' does not require them to imprison innocent people in indefinite detention under the guard of a criminally-negligent organisation.

For once I would agree with most of what the BBC says. Soft Western policies have led to a boom in a highly lucrative human trafficking in rickety boats where thousands have died. Of course the West is blamed for this.

Those 'soft Western policies' enabled Australia to receive boatloads of Vietnamese refugees fleeing the war in their homeland. I want to be part of a society that places a high value on compassion and I'm sick of the lazy, entitled bogans who are incensed that some brown people might be paid a few cents of their taxes. (Ironically, offshore detention is the most expensive policy we could have chosen.)

It also shows Australia is processing genuine cases and per the article and seems to be booting out non genuine cases. Many Arab countries have closed the borders to immigrants from the Middle East. However many are pouring out of the failed states in Asia to claim asylum or simply to try and enter the various host countries unnoticed. Who is to blame these people if there is an opportunity to do so?

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...inment-centre-when-you-could-live-in-cambodia

Cambodia is experiencing a great deal of growth. That would be the best choice. For the single men, they should be warned that the best looking women there are really men. (

 

[bigfield]

Cambodia is experiencing a great deal of growth.

Careful--too much spin and you'll get dizzy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Cambodia is experiencing a great deal of growth. That would be the best choice. For the single men, they should be warned that the best looking women there are really men. (

Growth is not wealth. Considering the utter shit hole Cambodia was up until... well... it's still a corrupt shit hole... Just slightly less so. Considering the degree of dysfunction and corruption in that place it'd be a fucking miracle not to have growth. Growth could just as well be a measurement of have comparatively bad things used to be. I spent a dinner and a night hanging out with a Swedish hotel owner in Sihanoukville and got the realities of operating businesses there explained to me. It's corrupt beyond belief. Everybody is in cahoots with everybody. Laws only exist to warrant bribes. The rich can do whatever they want. It's a highly dysfunctional kleptocracy.

An important source of the growth is their administration modernising. Ie previously unregistered subsitance farmers are now registered. So nothing has happened. The only difference is that transactions previously off the books is now in the books. This is not real growth. So far they've only picked the low hanging fruit, ie stopped doing retarded shit. Hun Sen still scrapes as much as he can off the top.

I can recommend the highly entertaining and informative Off the Rails in Phnom Penh by Amit Gilboa. It's mostly about the embarrassing shambles of a UN mission when they were put in charge of overseeing Cambodias first democratic election and transition to democracy. Hun Sen simply ignored the election result (he was voted out of power) and stayed anyway. The UN called that a successful mission, packed up and went home. The rest of the world fell silent. And that was 1993. The situation is the same now.

Cambodia is a bad joke of a nation. It's on par with Zimbabwe. If somebody sent me there to make a life for myself I would take it as a personal insult.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Cambodia is experiencing a great deal of growth. That would be the best choice. For the single men, they should be warned that the best looking women there are really men. (

Growth is not wealth. Considering the utter shit hole Cambodia was up until... well... it's still a corrupt shit hole... Just slightly less so. Considering the degree of dysfunction and corruption in that place it'd be a fucking miracle not to have growth. Growth could just as well be a measurement of have comparatively bad things used to be. I spent a dinner and a night hanging out with a Swedish hotel owner in Sihanoukville and got the realities of operating businesses there explained to me. It's corrupt beyond belief. Everybody is in cahoots with everybody. Laws only exist to warrant bribes. The rich can do whatever they want. It's a highly dysfunctional kleptocracy.

An important source of the growth is their administration modernising. Ie previously unregistered subsitance farmers are now registered. So nothing has happened. The only difference is that transactions previously off the books is now in the books. This is not real growth. So far they've only picked the low hanging fruit, ie stopped doing retarded shit. Hun Sen still scrapes as much as he can off the top.

I can recommend the highly entertaining and informative Off the Rails in Phnom Penh by Amit Gilboa. It's mostly about the embarrassing shambles of a UN mission when they were put in charge of overseeing Cambodias first democratic election and transition to democracy. Hun Sen simply ignored the election result (he was voted out of power) and stayed anyway. The UN called that a successful mission, packed up and went home. The rest of the world fell silent. And that was 1993. The situation is the same now.

Cambodia is a bad joke of a nation. It's on par with Zimbabwe. If somebody sent me there to make a life for myself I would take it as a personal insult.

It is one of the bottom of the pile countries about 117 or 118th in the world for GDP Growth is a good sign if it translates to higher standards of living (where 20 per cent are in poverty)
The Government no longer has over 50 per cent of the votes.
Perhaps the thought of Asylum in Cambodia dampened the enthusiasm for Australia
For Syrians I think that would be problem but from parts of Africa and India it would be home from home.

 

[TSwizzle]

Yeah, it sucks that economic migrants are taking advantage of the Syrian plight and "getting in on the action". But that's not the fault of the Syrians. Not only do they need our help, we've signed a contract to where we said we'd help. Time to stop shirking responsibility. Even islamophobes and racists have entered into that agreement through their countries. So, tough luck. Just man up.

LOL. For all the utter male bovine excrement you spew, this really is the crux of your argument, everybody that disagrees with you is just "islamophobic" (what ever that is supposed to mean, we don't really know) and/or racist. You're like a petulant child that can't have their way throwing a hissy fit, we should all just "man up". Dear oh dear.

"man up" LOL ! Really ?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Yeah, it sucks that economic migrants are taking advantage of the Syrian plight and "getting in on the action". But that's not the fault of the Syrians. Not only do they need our help, we've signed a contract to where we said we'd help. Time to stop shirking responsibility. Even islamophobes and racists have entered into that agreement through their countries. So, tough luck. Just man up.

LOL. For all the utter male bovine excrement you spew, this really is the crux of your argument, everybody that disagrees with you is just "islamophobic" (what ever that is supposed to mean, we don't really know) and/or racist. You're like a petulant child that can't have their way throwing a hissy fit, we should all just "man up". Dear oh dear.

"man up" LOL ! Really ?

There was a qualifier. If you're against humanitarian aid just own it. If you say you are for humanitarian aid but come with excuses if it's not your favourite version of human in trouble then I get to call you names.

 

[TSwizzle]

LOL. For all the utter male bovine excrement you spew, this really is the crux of your argument, everybody that disagrees with you is just "islamophobic" (what ever that is supposed to mean, we don't really know) and/or racist. You're like a petulant child that can't have their way throwing a hissy fit, we should all just "man up". Dear oh dear.

"man up" LOL ! Really ?

There was a qualifier. If you're against humanitarian aid just own it. If you say you are for humanitarian aid but come with excuses if it's not your favourite version of human in trouble then I get to call you names.

Yup, as I called it, like a petulant child that throws a hissy fit when they don't get their way. You're calling me racist, right ? *yawn*

 

[whichphilosophy]

There was a qualifier. If you're against humanitarian aid just own it. If you say you are for humanitarian aid but come with excuses if it's not your favourite version of human in trouble then I get to call you names.

Yup, as I called it, like a petulant child that throws a hissy fit when they don't get their way. You're calling me racist, right ? *yawn*

The problem with immigration culminated with US and allied foreign policy for regime change which have effectively set vast areas of the Middle East on fire, coupled with the relaxation of border controls by the European Union and its member states. Traffickers have capitalized on this and created a multi million (if not billion) dollar industry to drive in people from other parts of the world.

Arab countries such as the UAE and of course Saudi Arabia refuse to take refugees from Syria (unless they have a work permit) and certainly not economic migrants. I can't agree on your comments as Dr. Zoidberg has stated some good points even if I disagree with them.

The advantage of our own societies in the West, is we can agree to disagree. I believe economic migrants (as distinguished from genuine asylum seekers) will present a problem in Europe in the coming years both economically and socially. We have always had migrants but never in such unprecedented volumes.