Comments on: Asylum seeker rhetorics

By: Steve at the Pub

Steve at the Pub — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 14:26:30 +0000

Don Wigan, you are talking in circles. My point at #92 was that someone being granted refugee status by default is NOT the same as that someone actually being a refugee.

You are correct that I am not interested in your claim that Howard-Reith.. (blah blah blah) I hadn’t even noticed it. Deal with that.

Indisputably I ain’t “demolished” by a long shot, and you can take that to the bank.

Er… just which judges awarded a “Nobel Award” to Captain Arne Rinnan? He has received all sorts of fruit salad from various tossers, including an award from the UNHCR, and a “gong for the boys” from the King of Norway, but he ain’t recieved a “Nobel” anything.

Sometimes it is better to not dive into something you didn’t start, in water that is too deep for you.
You can work out for yourself just how demolished you are….

By: Don Wigan

Don Wigan — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:33:47 +0000

Not quite, Stevo. As I understand it, the Nauru figure was 91% and that was by UNHCR. You’re taking a different line from Student T who felt UNHCR was too liberal compared with Australia.

OK, so now you’re claiming that 92# was not an argument. What was it then, just a snide remark? In any case the statement:
“Those rescued by the Tampa may (or may not) have been refugees, but they sure were most ungracious to their rescuers.”

was a bit misleading even if semantically correct. You know very well that the vast majority were accepted as refugees, and if it galled you too much to concede that it would have been best to avoid it altogether, rather than the wishy-washy “some may, some may not” that you used.

You have done nothing to contradict my claim that Howard-Reith used the defence forces to control information, and relying on them after what we know aboat Children Overboard is hazardous at best.

And on the topic of the alleged lack of nerve by the Tampa crew, this claim seems to run counter to the judges at the Nobel awards, where the captain got a gong for heroism.

Anything else?

By: Steve at the Pub

Steve at the Pub — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:59:57 +0000

Don Wigan, #92 was not an argument (as such) #95 is a laugh, not a “demolishing”.

Refugee status granted by default is not the same as refugee status proved (the onus being on the assessor to disprove a case, quite difficult with undocumented & clued up “gamers” of the system)

Quick question: Why is the success rate (ie deemed refugee) circa 90% for those who “make it” into Australian waters, but for those assessed by the UNHCR the success rate is more like 60% ?

You are demolished!

By: Don Wigan

Don Wigan — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 21:44:34 +0000

“…point to even ONE occasion of my “arguments” being demolished.

#92 and #95.

By: Steve at the Pub

Steve at the Pub — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:22:57 +0000

Zoot, point to even ONE occasion of my “arguments” being demolished. Clue: Saying “you’re a dickhead” is not demolition of an argument.

John Ward #73. Please name those NT Land Grants purchased by Indonesians.

By: John Ward

John Ward — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 12:08:25 +0000

Please to think about this. If you are fleeing Iraq to escape persecution because you are an Assyrian, a Kurd, or a Christian. To have t o get yourself to the Australian embassy to obtain the appropriate entry documents.
You will have to pas through Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, to Malaya and KL where John Howard’s Australia would be only to pleased to process your papers, “Just take a seat and a ticket from the numbered ticket dispenser and we’ll be right with you”
Now That is what I call an orderly Queue.

By: zoot

zoot — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:59:58 +0000

SATP, your arguments have been demolished so often and so comprehensively in so many forums and yet still you cling to them so desperately. Let me guess, your special school didn’t have a debating team?
Hint – trotting out the same old assertions without a skerrick of evidence is not debating.

By: Steve at the Pub

Steve at the Pub — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 05:36:14 +0000

Zoot, I’ll take that as conceding I am right. Let me guess, you didn’t exactly shine on the high school debating team?

The first obligation of the Australian Government is to the people of Australia. Any government that puts the Australian people second, and some obscure “international obligation” first, can expect a ballot box hiding. Rudd knows this, hence the “indonesian solution”.

Helen, the “lost their papers” argument is no more “tired” than is the “managed to hang onto their Fifteen Thousand greenbacks apiece” argument. Especially if the ones claiming “lost papers” have come part of the way by commerical air travel.

The Aussie public are more than prepared to give someone a fair go. Undertandably there is healthy cycnicism about 3rd country arrivals, who have “lost” their papers somewhere between KL airport and Ashmore Reef, then scuttle their boat when the RAN steams over the horizon.

Some tips for unannounced arrivals:
Make Australia your first port of call after escaping your country of origin.
Have some – any – documentation (this means you must actually be a refugee)
Do not pay USD $15,000 for a risky journey on a leaky scow, when Jetstar charges AUD $500.
Do not scuttle said leaky scow upon interception by the RAN.
When being transported by the RAN, do NOT become violent with RAN personnel.
When being transported by the RAN, do NOT vandalise RAN vessels.

Adherence to the above will ensure you of a warm welcome & a helping hand.

By: Gordon

Gordon — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:23:32 +0000

By the way…the argument at the moment isn’t even about how long they should be in detention camps. The government is trying to not even let them reach our shores, so we don’t even have to assess whether they are asylum seekers, as our international obligations would dictate.

By: zoot

zoot — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:56:07 +0000

The reason people are banged up for years is they are rejected, and then spend years appealing and re-appealing their rejection

SATP, it’d be nice if you got your facts right.