[Australia] Independent MP Andrew Wilkie requests International Criminal Court investigation on huma - Polidicks

[QUOTE=shackleford;46302122]Yes the good ol greeny lefty policies in educating people by injecting em with positivity. Give a socialist a car and a nice home, they become capitalist tomorrow. You certainly emphasise on the themes of racism but I think it's a bit too exaggerated. When people of different culture come here, they are inherently isolated with the supposed 'Australian culture.' trouble assimilating can be caused by a mixture of different factors rather than racism. Boat people are normally risky and inherently dangerous because as I said, they carry no ID and all that, no records of their criminal history etc.. And you know what i don't get, is that certain 'refugees are avoiding prosecution.' Maybe they were or not guilty under that particular legal system for whatever action the refugee did. It's really ambiguous and cannot be really proven at all. So this is why I believe we shouldn't just open the channel gates and let the boat people ride in. There should be very strict control. Therefore, just believing that the borders should be tightened is not necessarily racist at all.[/QUOTE] You keep referring to refugees as 'Boat People', which in my opinion is a term coined by the liberal party to push election propaganda to the racist public. It's filled with negative connotations and highly derogatory. You seem to have taken this term to heart and permanently transfixed it in your mind as the only way to describe these people who are coming from impoverished backgrounds. Did you know that there is a 50% chance that a refugee will be killed after we send them back to their original country? Your random and outright comment about 'greeny lefty policies' shows that you are not approaching this issue from a humanitarian standpoint, but a more personal and political one. To me, this means you are either not taking it seriously, have highly skewed facts, or are using it as a cover for closet racism. You say that there is 'trouble assimilating'. How do you not understand that we are a multicultural country? This post reminds me of a fearmongering news story a saw a couple of years back, 'Is australia too multicultural?'. Something designed to appeal to people who are racist one way or another. With regard to their assimilation, it only benefits or disadvantages THEM, so its not really your problem. They made the choice to give up everything to come here, and im sure they'd take 'trouble assimilating' over '50% chance of being killed back home'. Australia DOES have a lot of racists and racism embedded in its culture. You can see it on news stories, history, TV, and many other media sources. 'Boat people' as you call them, obviously will have no ID. Chances are the country they are coming from didn't even issue them one, so there isnt much more you can do there. And under this, how do you justify the deportation of people who are refugees but brought ID anyway? The lack of history or criminal records can be solved by background checks while the refugee is in detention. But I will make it clear, why would a criminal want to spend weeks on a rickety dodgy boat to get to a country to do criminal things, when they can just take a plane and then take on a new identity? The channel gates for refugees were never open. They are detained for a fair amount of time, studied, checked, watched. And now with the current racists system, they are deported. There WAS strict control. Now there is no control, 100% of the refugees are deported or assigned to another low development country. Your repeated use of the word 'boat people', repeated denial of heavy nationalism and high racism in Australia, and clear distaste for the left side of the political spectrum leads me to believe you are just another stock-standard liberal supporter who believes all their propaganda. Here's the thing, Liberals havent made the situation better. More refugees keep arriving, but the liberals just refuse to release any information because they made it a 'military operation'. I find this humorous because they will happily release information about military operations against IS, such as chopper deployments, bombs that have been dropped and missions which have been completed. Why the double standard? So they look good. Perhaps you should think more critically in the future about your political choices.

[QUOTE=shackleford;46302122]Yes the good ol greeny lefty policies in educating people by injecting em with positivity. Give a socialist a car and a nice home, they become capitalist tomorrow. You certainly emphasise on the themes of racism but I think it's a bit too exaggerated. When people of different culture come here, they are inherently isolated with the supposed 'Australian culture.' trouble assimilating can be caused by a mixture of different factors rather than racism. Boat people are normally risky and inherently dangerous because as I said, they carry no ID and all that, no records of their criminal history etc.. And you know what i don't get, is that certain 'refugees are avoiding prosecution.' Maybe they were or not guilty under that particular legal system for whatever action the refugee did. It's really ambiguous and cannot be really proven at all. So this is why I believe we shouldn't just open the channel gates and let the boat people ride in. There should be very strict control. Therefore, just believing that the borders should be tightened is not necessarily racist at all.[/QUOTE] For the umpteenth time, provide me any evidence of a refugee coming here with malicious intent. Then show me how it is endemic. You may not be racist, but you seem to be extraordinarily xenophobic. What the refugee did?? Why are we assuming they did anything wrong? Your default assumption is that refugees have done something wrong and are 'normally risky and inherently dangerous' to Australia. That is xenophobia. Especially when you have absolutely no evidence for that claim whatsoever. You believe there should be strict control because you think that refugees are scary and threatening without any other evidence than "they came here without ID!" Which not all of them do anyhow. Hey, you know what, do you want refugees to not be a threat and for us to know exactly who they are? Why don't you go [I]talk[/I] to them. Make friends. No really. Maybe it sounds like hippy greeny lefty policy (like educating people hahaha! Imagine giving someone an education! What left wing trash!) but even if they are terrorists in the end having friends in Australia makes them less likely to kill you. Also you are less likely to assume they have done something illegal by default if you know them. All we need is a secure and prompt screening process. That's the most effective thing, then integration quickly so that they [I]don't[/I] feel isolated. And we need to fix this perception that refugees are a threat. They're running from persecution. That's the [I]definition[/I] of a refugee. So. Before we go on, first show me exactly where these people are a threat to us and what basis you have for the claim that they did something wrong. With actual evidence not just "no ID!"

[QUOTE=Blackfire76;46306215]You keep referring to refugees as 'Boat People', which in my opinion is a term coined by the liberal party to push election propaganda to the racist public. It's filled with negative connotations and highly derogatory. You seem to have taken this term to heart and permanently transfixed it in your mind as the only way to describe these people who are coming from impoverished backgrounds. Did you know that there is a 50% chance that a refugee will be killed after we send them back to their original country? Your random and outright comment about 'greeny lefty policies' shows that you are not approaching this issue from a humanitarian standpoint, but a more personal and political one. To me, this means you are either not taking it seriously, have highly skewed facts, or are using it as a cover for closet racism. You say that there is 'trouble assimilating'. How do you not understand that we are a multicultural country? This post reminds me of a fearmongering news story a saw a couple of years back, 'Is australia too multicultural?'. Something designed to appeal to people who are racist one way or another. With regard to their assimilation, it only benefits or disadvantages THEM, so its not really your problem. They made the choice to give up everything to come here, and im sure they'd take 'trouble assimilating' over '50% chance of being killed back home'. Australia DOES have a lot of racists and racism embedded in its culture. You can see it on news stories, history, TV, and many other media sources. 'Boat people' as you call them, obviously will have no ID. Chances are the country they are coming from didn't even issue them one, so there isnt much more you can do there. And under this, how do you justify the deportation of people who are refugees but brought ID anyway? The lack of history or criminal records can be solved by background checks while the refugee is in detention. But I will make it clear, why would a criminal want to spend weeks on a rickety dodgy boat to get to a country to do criminal things, when they can just take a plane and then take on a new identity? The channel gates for refugees were never open. They are detained for a fair amount of time, studied, checked, watched. And now with the current racists system, they are deported. There WAS strict control. Now there is no control, 100% of the refugees are deported or assigned to another low development country. Your repeated use of the word 'boat people', repeated denial of heavy nationalism and high racism in Australia, and clear distaste for the left side of the political spectrum leads me to believe you are just another stock-standard liberal supporter who believes all their propaganda. Here's the thing, Liberals havent made the situation better. More refugees keep arriving, but the liberals just refuse to release any information because they made it a 'military operation'. I find this humorous because they will happily release information about military operations against IS, such as chopper deployments, bombs that have been dropped and missions which have been completed. Why the double standard? So they look good. Perhaps you should think more critically in the future about your political choices.[/QUOTE] As I just pointed out, it is a more economical and less risky method to just not even let them in, and this isn't racism at all, it's just plain mild xenophobia, there's a difference. I'm ok with controlled immigration of identified people of any racial background, coming here with evidence of what they'd be doing here. This isn't about race from my viewpoint. And how can you even tell more refugees are arriving? I believe that other countries should be taking the initiative in properly looking after their people, and if that fails then UN refugee camps would take their place and shelter them, which is just as humanitarian. Also, Australian nationalism is degraded and is generally aligned to the degenerate bogans and uneducated plebs of this society. If you read my other post I reckon there should be a competent cosmopolitan benevolent world socialist authoritarian government, or even what Scottywired pointed out earlier on. And perhaps these boat people would rid their identification in their hopes of disguising as a real refugee. Im just speculating here. Check how much rhetoric u employed in ur post lol. It was generally not well thought IMO.

Yes you are all speculation. All your assumptions have no evidence to back them up. In fact the opposite of what you suggests seems to be true. These people are more likely to hurt themselves because of our treatment than hurt us. I suppose that's more efficient? It certainly isn't more economical however. We spend almost ten billion dollars a year on detaining these people off shore. It would cost only a few million dollars to give them a business class ticket to Australia and not much more to detain them briefly on the mainland for security and medical checks. I am talking savings upward of five billion dollars. The other countries that you think should be taking the initiative probably are. But they aren't succeeding. On account of already fighting a war. Or alternatively these people aren't being looked after appropriately because of their background, political, or religious views and their country probably never will. So yes we should try and fix the problem but that won't be happening any time soon and this is a problem now. That we can solve. Instead we have a patchwork solution that puts more people at risk and costs way more than it should.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;46306235]For the umpteenth time, provide me any evidence of a refugee coming here with malicious intent. Then show me how it is endemic. You may not be racist, but you seem to be extraordinarily xenophobic. What the refugee did?? Why are we assuming they did anything wrong? Your default assumption is that refugees have done something wrong and are 'normally risky and inherently dangerous' to Australia. That is xenophobia. Especially when you have absolutely no evidence for that claim whatsoever. You believe there should be strict control because you think that refugees are scary and threatening without any other evidence than "they came here without ID!" Which not all of them do anyhow. Hey, you know what, do you want refugees to not be a threat and for us to know exactly who they are? Why don't you go [I]talk[/I] to them. Make friends. No really. Maybe it sounds like hippy greeny lefty policy (like educating people hahaha! Imagine giving someone an education! What left wing trash!) but even if they are terrorists in the end having friends in Australia makes them less likely to kill you. Also you are less likely to assume they have done something illegal by default if you know them. All we need is a secure and prompt screening process. That's the most effective thing, then integration quickly so that they [I]don't[/I] feel isolated. And we need to fix this perception that refugees are a threat. They're running from persecution. That's the [I]definition[/I] of a refugee. So. Before we go on, first show me exactly where these people are a threat to us and what basis you have for the claim that they did something wrong. With actual evidence not just "no ID!"[/QUOTE] You know you're right. If we brainwash people effectively we can create like minded people who'd accept these refugees as a sign of altruism, and through this we can produce a more smarter and tolerant society that is not bent on being heavily emotive. I personally reckon refugees coming here and assimilating would be less problematic when everyone collectively makes them feel welcome, and acknowledge the circumstances that they had experienced. Controlling the media is one solution to doing this, as many channels do tingle us to gain an emotional reaction, perhaps fuelling certain people's racist thoughts. I'd suggest nationalising the news corporations would do the trick. Also perhaps it might be difficult to communicate with some refugees as I only know how to speak English. This post really gave me an in depth thought. You are correct in posing authoritative measures in the screening process. We do still bring in some refugees I'd imagine but on a minimal scale. Though what would be wrong about transporting some refugees to UN camps to ensure these refugees are protected. [editline]23rd October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=gerbe1;46306751]Yes you are all speculation. All your assumptions have no evidence to back them up. In fact the opposite of what you suggests seems to be true. These people are more likely to hurt themselves because of our treatment than hurt us. I suppose that's more efficient? It certainly isn't more economical however. We spend almost ten billion dollars a year on detaining these people off shore. It would cost only a few million dollars to give them a business class ticket to Australia and not much more to detain them briefly on the mainland for security and medical checks. I am talking savings upward of five billion dollars. The other countries that you think should be taking the initiative probably are. But they aren't succeeding. On account of already fighting a war. Or alternatively these people aren't being looked after appropriately because of their background, political, or religious views and their country probably never will. So yes we should try and fix the problem but that won't be happening any time soon and this is a problem now. That we can solve. Instead we have a patchwork solution that puts more people at risk and costs way more than it should.[/QUOTE] They are getting food, water and shelter in those detention areas. Why are they're being rowdy? [editline]23rd October 2014[/editline] I meant by economical is sending a bunch of refugees to these UN camp centres, while also accepting refugees coming in. And these poorer governments are generally getting donations from other countries to try and alleviate these problems, getting like plenty of money. In response about evidence of refugees doing anything bad. There are none, because most problems caused are generally because of assimilation problems, such as their inherent isolation due to different culture, and also from external factors, such as certain individuals that practice in racism. Also most problems were actually prevented as refugees that are accepted get well looked after under the welfare system of Australia, hence reducing 'crime caused by poverty' as a result. Though I do agree on a tough screening process to reduce such inherent risks.

Brainwash: no we can do it by education. Unless that's what you mean by brainwash. Nationalised media: lol. That would give stronger voices to the non-national media. Language barriers: overcome with the right education. You would be surprised how well you can get on with someone who can't speak your language if you are nice and ho in happy and kind hearted. Food and water: you poor thing. They're being rowdy because being detained indefinitely is literally torture. Imagine never knowing if you will be able to leave a place. That is known to cause mental issues. of course you would try and raise awareness. The fact that I have to explain this to you is just evidence of extreme ignorance on your part. UN Camp centres: these things are neither common nor efficient nor permanent. They don't have the resources to handle half the numbers that Australia does let alone other developed countries. Donations: paying money, even if they did to every single country (which they don't ) that had refugees coming from them would be unlikely to solve much overnight. They don't get "plenty" either. No evidence of refugee problems: if there are none because it all arises in the country... What does lack of ID matter. Knowing who they are isn't going to change much if they're going to change anyway. Of course yes do it as best you can but you just answered your own concerns about lack of ID and the alleged threat of refugees: there is none that mandatory detention will solve. You are just making claims about what you think should be the case. With no evidence or apparently no research. You are just making this stuff up. Do some reading and start coming at me with numbers and we'll formed arguments. Not vague ideas. At the moment you are just... Wrong.

[QUOTE=Moustacheman;46302458]Wait, what is all this about? Can a Strayan explain why there are refugees and stuff?[/QUOTE] Australia is one of the better-off countries in not only the Australasian region, but across the world. A lot of people from Africa, the Middle East, India, South-East Asia etc live under persecution (or just in poor conditions relative to Australia) eg Tamils in South Asia, and 'people smugglers' go to these people and tell them that if you give them your entire life savings they'll put you on a boat and send you to Australia, which is relatively easy to access (compared to other developed countries) through ship passage going by South Asia. So a lot of boats filled with these asylum seekers make their way into Australian waters, where they are promptly intercepted by authorities and turned around to where they came from, Indonesia or Sri Lanka in most cases. Sometimes asylum seekers are handed over directly to the authorities of those countries, of which some asylum seekers were fleeing persecution from, without their refugee claims being properly processed. Personally I believe that we should process any asylum seeker onshore (creates jobs here I guess) and apply the refugee tests to the asylum seekers. Those who are found to be genuine refugees should be given temporary visas which are re-assessed like once every year to see if the refugee can safely return home, else its renewed for another year and so on. Those who fail the refugee test are returned to authorities of where they came from. That should be the deterrent for those people without genuine refugee claims.

[QUOTE=gerbe1;46307071] You are just making claims about what you think should be the case. With no evidence or apparently no research. You are just making this stuff up. Do some reading and start coming at me with numbers and we'll formed arguments. Not vague ideas. At the moment you are just... Wrong.[/QUOTE] He probably did do his research. Direct from the liberal party ads, spokespeople and website :suicide: