Cool, now we're paying criminals
 

Link

Well you got your wish Kostya. This my friends is the first step in Australia's new 'open door' immigration policy. You'll thank the NSW Supreme Court when your daughter is raped by a man wanted in Syria for murder.

I'm confused Meri...

Which criminals are we paying? Do you mean to suggest that an eleven year old boy is criminally culpable?

You will find me not easily susceptible to blatant attempts to bait me. If you wish to have a discussion I am quite willing, if you merely wish to make outrageous claims then I don't think we will get very far which is unfortunate.

Um considering they were kept locked up like animals without charge, they're more than entitled to at least an apology, and compensation.

Australians and immigration...*shakes head* there some who have the most fucked up racial beliefs. Having said that, some are wonderfully caring and accepting people. Too bad it seems they're a dying breed.

It is worth noting we have discussed the illegality or not of detention centres already:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=68472

I think there is a need for somewhere to put people who have entered the country illegally or who have overstayed their visas. I don't whoever agree that people should be there indefinitely, nor do I agree that the conditions should be "prison-like". I advocate being able to process these people as quickly as possible and err on the side of accepting more refugees than less. I mean, it is not like we don't have the space for them...

And, if it is found that they don't have a case for entry into the country, then ship them from whence they came...

If the facilities were more humane, then compensation becomes a moot point.

Sadly Meri's stance seems to be very much the same now as it was then.

On the surface of it, we may clearly dismiss his claims here as simply mistaken.

The boy simply is not a criminal.

The further implications that he makes I would be glad to discuss, but it seems Meri will not give me satisfaction on this occasion.

It wasn't a bait, and I'm not altogether that angry about the payoff to the boy (should've changed the thread title), it's where this is headed that worries me. This is getting closer and closer to judging that they are being wrongly imprisoned, and when that happens it's a free-for-all for anyone to enter our country regardless of character/history. We can't just let them in no questions asked, but you're right, we can't keep them indefinately either. The reason I didn't keep arguing last time is that I simply don't have an alternative to the detention centres. Can you guys come up with one?

Were you just a little angry about it? Or not at all? I remain somewhat confused by how you could in any way see this to warrant that kind of reaction in any degree.

Before I even begin my response I need to say that it is apparent to me immediately that our discussion will eventually range very far and wide. I hope that you are not averse to a somewhat prolonged and broad debate, because this is not an issue that can be discussed with brevity.

I must confess, that your statement here confuses me very much. I do not understand how you consider the 'judging' of a situation to be contingent upon the consequences that might proceed from making that judgement.

Either it is raining, or it is not, the fact that the latter might mean my washing gets wet does not change that simple judgement. Admittedly this one is much less clear, but whatever your fears for the future, they oughtn't have any bearing on your stance on what this practice is.

As I understand it, many nations appear to get by without detention centres. The UK for instance does not detain asylum seekers for prolonged periods.

It seems to me that your position will bring our discussion once more towards this entire issue of national sovereignty which is no simple thing, I shall leave it aside for now and ask simply, why is the UK's policy not adequate?