Mephisto2

I just don't know where to start. Let's just say it's a bloody disgrace.


Mr Mephisto

Potatocake

You have to feel sorry for the poor guy, he has no home, even homeless people can go where-ever the hell they want. He'll probably do himself in if he isn't released soon, I would!

slimshaydee

does he have the option to get deported back to where he came from? Maybe that'll learn him to get in the legal way

MrFlux

No, read the article closer

__________________
flux (n.)
Medicine. The discharge of large quantities of fluid material from the body, especially the discharge of watery feces from the intestines.

slimshaydee

reading the article is so cliche. I just make random comments and hope for the best.

Ella

slim....your approach to posting rocks serious ass, babe.

I can empathise with the bloke's plight, but can see a dangerous precedent being set here if Australia decides to take him.

__________________
"Afterwards, the universe will explode for your pleasure."

Arc101

That sucks - if the person is not a criminal, poses not threat to society then how can you justify imprisoning someone indefinitely ?

Mr_Wall

Ella, did you know that after world war 2 we took in over 200,000 displaced people (refugees)

Kostya

If they grant him asylum he did enter the legal way. Except he had to endure a period of 7 years of detention for a 'crime' he did not commit, and even if he did commit is still relatively insignificant compared to say the people who get shorter sentences for actual violent crimes...

Your lack of compassion is astounding.

spindles

Yep, I think it is a disgrace. Having said that, I also think it is disgraceful that India or Pakistan would not take them back.

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

ultra_agent9

Entering a foreign country without a visa (say, on a boat) isn't illegal?

Call me crazy, but in the old days people would just apply for a visa (or refugee status), and get this: they would even use this passport-thingy to enter and depart foreign countries.

Yeah, wild isn't it?

__________________
Champaigne for my real friends, real pain for my sham friends.

Kostya

No, not if you're a refugee. You get granted asylum and are legally under the protection of the Australian government.

Meridae'n

Will some people ever get it? These people aren't refugees because they're NOT fleeing from war. Sure, he says "I came here hoping for refuge from the fighting in Indian-occupied Kashmir" but surely you're not naive enough to believe that old chestnut. If he was from that region then he would certainly have proven it by now and have refugee status. I know that sounds heartless, but the goddess said it better than I can:

What happens if we grant him citizenship? Floodgates open my friends. It's a terrible situation, I can only wish he had more idea about the consequences of his actions before he handed over the money and jumped on the boat.

And, no, this doesn't make me embarrassed to be Australian, it makes me angry that their are ruthless criminals in neighbouring countries that take advantage of these poor people.

__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

Kostya

Ok then. Let's just assume that everything you said is the absolute truth. Why is it, that you have no pity for a man who has commited a fairly minor, victimless crime by immigrating illegally, who has been punished with 7 years of his life being taken from him. Consider people who have assualted and stolen who have received shorter sentences, is it not an injustice that this man has lost more years of his life than a person who brutally attacks another human being, potentially causing them permanent damage. Who has he attacked? Where is the actual harm he, himself has caused? Why is it them that you have absolutely no sympathy for him, his plight, even if what you say is true, and I don't believe you can prove that it is, is far and away too harsh for his misconduct.

frozenstellar

its a bastard of a situation, i agree with both Meri & Kostya. Let him in, and watch them all flock in. Keep him in detention indefinately - he's doing more time than the guy who killed my friend 2 years ago in a drunken hit & run.

how can that possibly be justified?

Meridae'n

I guess this highlights the main difference in our opinions... i do not think that immigrating illegally is a "fairly minor, victimless crime". I, and most of the developed world, see this as a very serious crime that can lead to the immigration of very dangerous people. I guess this makes me paranoid, but I want to know the background of every person that moves to my country. If these people can't get refugee status, there's a reason. If they don't want to use the correct avenues to citizenship, there's a reason.

It certainly is an injustice that this man has lost 7 years of his life, in fact, it's a tragedy, unfortunately not an isolated tragedy. Believe me I have sympathy for this man.

You seem like an intelligent person Kostya, so I ask you this:

a) What do we do with the people that are being held in detention?

b) Do you believe that rate of boat people will increase if we assimilate the detainees into our society? What do we do with future boat people?

__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

Kostya

So you're saying it's a SERIOUS crime because it could lead to dangerous people immigrating...

Interesting. So, you believe it's a serious crime for a decent human being to immigrate illegally, based solely on the fact that it could lead to a dangerous person immigrating. You are holding the decent person responsible and culpable for the possibility of someone dangerous possibly immigrating into our country and doing something actually criminal. Forgive me if I find this somewhat unjust. Frankly, I don't think that it's a serious crime whatsoever on the part of this man, nor do I think that even a psychotic nutcase who immigrated illegally performed a serious crime by doing so. He may commit a serious crime later, but his illegal immigration is hardly a serious infraction of Australian law. I mean if Martin Bryant had jay walkd right before he started shooting, people wouldn't call it a serious crime, despite the identity of the perpetrator.

In answer to your question:

1. Upgrade their facilities and keep them in humane conditions instead of their current accomodation. Moreover, commit more human resources to quickly resolving issues of identity and criminality so as to minimise as much as possible the period of detention. Alternatively assimilate them into society the way they do in Britain.

2. Possibly, assimilate them too.

Meridae'n

Possibly? Yes or no? Do you believe the rate of boat people will increase or not?

I beleive your argument that the detention centres are not up to the quality they should be is a direct contradiction of your previous stance... so it's alright if we hold them as long as the jail is more like a hotel? It would not matter if we made Woomera into a 5 star palace... they are still in detention, and it would not be long until your left-wing kinfolk would be protesting that it isn't enough.

How do you know that this man is innocent of any previous crime? Because he said so? Fair enough then, be it far from me to question the honesty of a man trying to hide from immigration officials. If we stop one murderer from gaining entry by holding 1000 people in these centres, then I believe the 'system' has worked.

I don't know what you were trying to say with the Martyn Bryant analogy, so I can't really comment on that.

Here's another major difference in our opinions: You say we cannot use the risk of a future crime being committed by any of these people as a reason to stop them entering. I say that is definately a reason for denying entry. If there is any reasonable chance of a crime being committed on the persons or property of an Australian citizen by one of these people then we cannot grant them entry. The people here are citizens by birthright or have worked hard to gain citizenship legally and we cannot compromise their trust and safety by letting people in who we have little information about.

How do Britain deal with their illegal immigrants?

__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

Mr_Wall

Would anyone seriously go to same depths this guy has to get into a country? I reckon if he has the balls to jump in a bathtub with the sinkhole plugged up and a newspaper for a paddle with no directions to get here or food and water, actually does survive let him in he's a proven "battler".

Mephisto2

Well, some of you have simply reinforced my opinion that a great deal of middle Australia is NOT the caring, multi-cultural, happy go lucky, welcoming and "fair go" country that it likes to think it is.

This country has changed, considerably, for the worse in the four years I've been here.

Racism, misinformation, lack of compassion... all of it thanks to Howard in my opinion.

Who says One Nation was an aberration?


Mr Mephisto

Kostya

Why ask for an absolute answer. Personally I believe the amount of asylum seekers is not determined solely by this variant. I cannot give you a Yes or No answer, I said maybe because I am unsure.

I do not believe it is just to hold them in 5 Star hotels, but I believe it is better, and if people are going to persist in demanding that they are going to be held in detention, then at least they deserve to be housed in proper facilities. This is not what I think is just, but I much prefer it to the current situation. If my 'left wing kinfolk' were to protest that situation they can feel free, that is not my concern, nor do I endorse their approach, dogma or methodology, so as I have already warned you, refrain from patronising me.
How do you know he is guilty of one? But, for the sake of argument, let's presume this character actuall murdered 50 babies. Now we don't know that, we can't prove it, I'd say that that constitutes reasonable doubt. Not that that matters anyhow, since he hasn't been tried, found guilty by a jury and sentenced formally to jail time. He is being held NOT for murdering 50 babies, but for the fact that he might have committed a crime in the past and therefore might not be a legitimate asylum seeker and therefore might be an illegal immigrant. Now I agree that this baby killer is a despicable human being, and that he ought to be brought to justice, but his act of immigrating illegally is hardly justification for his incarceration. Essentially am I to believe that you are advocating wholesale the policy of incarcerating a person on suspicion that they might have committed a crime? How is this just?
It certainly is far from you to question the honesty of a man trying to hide from immigration officials, that is if he did try to hide from immigration officials, I don't see that mentioned anywhere in the article at all. Let's just for the sake of argument presume he WAS trying to hide from the immigration officials. Now if I'm a perfectly honest fellow, and I'm coming into Australia and I absolutely know that regardless of my honesty and innocence I will be detained for certain. Do I really wish to be detained? Not at all. How could I evade this distasteful experience, I suppose I would evade the guards. Is this not a plausible situation? Is it not possible that in fact this man could be the most honest man on the planet and still try to evade immigration officials?

Interesting. I would rather a 1000 innocent men be punished than let one murderer go free. Basically you're saying it's ok to incarcerate a population in order to prevent 0.1% of that population being free? You're saying it's ok to deprive 999 individuals of their, who are completely innocent in order to ensure that 1 person is not allowed to go free? Now let's just, for the sake of argument, create a hypothetical town, this town is called Brownsville, it has 1001 inhabitants, Brownsville is has really strict traffic laws, and nobody goes in or out between the hours of 6am and 6pm, let's just presume this is followed to the letter by all. Now, one morning at 5.59am, John Doe is found dead, there are now 999 innocent inhabitants, 1 corpse and 1 murderer in Brownsville. Are you saying, that faced with this situation, you would imprison the entire population of Brownsville, based on the fact that you know there is a murder in their midst? In fact, since you clearly stipulated that you would rather see 1000 innocent punished than 1 guilty one go free then even if the punishment was ridiculously harsh you would still rather see it inflicted on 1000 men rather than have 1 go free. So let's just say the law in Brownsville calls for immediate executiong by burning of a murderer, are you suggesting that you would be fine with having the entire town punished in this way than the murderer go free? Moreover, if you were to take 1000 asylum seekers, could you even have anything approaching knowledge that there was even a single murderer in their midst? No I don't think you could, so even the Brownsville analogy is not as extreme as what you're advocating. You are saying that there might be a murderer in every 1000 asylum seekers and given this mere suspicion you are saying they should be incarcerated. This is more like imprisoning the population of Brownsville based on a suspicion that someone from Brownsville might have murdered somebody. Now, let's say YOU lived in Brownsville, would you be absolutely content to be imprisoned because you have a 1 in 1000 chance of being a murderer? How is this in any way just? Quite frankly if Australians were treated according to this logic, there would be massive public outcry over it.

What I am saying is this. Martin Bryant may very well have jaywalked in his time, but this has NO bearing whatsoever on his real crime. In the same way that is a person immigrates illegally, this is certainly a misdemenour, but does not in any way relate to their subsequent crimes if they commit any in any sense of justice of culpability.

Ok. So now you're advocating the policy that people might commit crimes in the future, and based on that they ought not be let in. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but are there not criminals, born and bred in Australia who might commit a crime in the future? Now, surely, there's a risk that they might, and therefore, much like the immigrants who might commit crimes in the future, we should ensure they aren't allowed to live in this country. I myself have the capacity, right now to commit a crime. Why not lock me up? Because I haven't ACTUALLY broken any laws. You can't possibly say that they should be turned away from Australia based purely on the mere possibility that they might commit a crime in the future, in fact you can't turn them away on the basis of a distinct probability that they could commit a crime in the future. Now, maybe if they had committed a crime in the past, you could argue for turning them away, but you're saying that 'definitely' the reason for denying entry is the possibility of future crime, DESPITE the fact they have not ACTUALLY broken the law. Does this not strike you as unjust?

Well, I guess that no more tourists can be allowed into Australia. Tourists have committed crimes in this country in the past, they certainly have the capacity to do so now. There's a reasonable, in that it is not beyond the limits of reason, and is in fact quite plausible chance that a tourist could commit a crime against the persons or property of an Australian. Therefore, we ought not grant them entry. There is a reasonable chance of ANY human being in this country committing a crime against another, but a reasonable chance does not constitute an actual crime, in fact a very real threat of committing a crime does not constitute an actual crime does it. If I go about claiming that I wholly intend to rob a bank, purchase the weapons and equipment needed to do so, make it clear to all and sundry that I am going to rob a bank and moreover, I am going to rob the bank on the corner of Down and Up streets, they cannot arrest me until I actually commit a crime. If I walk up to the doors of the bank with an 12 gauge shotgun (lets assume that it's not an offense to carry a loaded weapon around in public, but that aside) they can't arrest me. Now you're saying that even if I can do all this, making it a clear probability that I am going to commit a crime, and not be arrested, it is still ok for people to be imprisoned based on the suspicion that theymight intend to commit a crime. In fact, not even this, just the existence of the possibility that they are capable and could in fact commit a crime is enough for you. What essentially divides me from them?

How much do we know about tourists who come into this country? Let's just say I'm a wealthy, ruthless Mafia boss. Am I going to have trouble getting a passport? No, am I going to have trouble getting into Australia? No. We let them in, despite the fact that we know nothing about them Does this not compromise the safety of citizens? Moreover, how is 'birthright' a meaningful quality whatsoever, being born in Australia is not an achievment of the mucus coated infant who results, yet you suggest that by virtue of their existence beginning within an arbitrary geographical construct actually means they have more of a right to be here than anyone else. Martin Bryant, Brendan Abbot, Chopper Read and Christopher Skase are all Australians by birthright are they not. They are also criminals are they not. Being born in Australia in no way reduced their criminality does it not? In fact being born in Australia does not in any way meaningfully make them more deserving of being a citizen of this country does it not? You are saying, that the purely legal distinction between an Australian citizen, and someone born in another country has any meaning whatsoever in an ethical sense? Does it in any way influence the injustice of what occurs? Consider this, for the sake of argument, there are ten people in Bolivia, all of them are going to be executed by an insane local military official, these ten people are 5 Australians, and 5 asylum seekers. Now the captain says to you: 'You can save 5', do you save the Australians because they are Australians? What if all 5 Australians were paedophiles? Would you still save them simply by virtue of the fact that they were Australian. Whatever you did, it would be an injustice for 5 people to die regardless of their nationality, place of birth or status as citizens of this or any other country. There is no actual, meaningful distinction between an asylum seeker and an Australian citizen.

From the British Deparment of Immigration website:

Clearly, while people's claims for asylum are being investigated they are assimilated into the community and are in fact encouraged to take an active role in their communities. This country is not being flooded with hordes of refugees, nor is it being destroyed by pursuing this policy.

Mr_Wall

It's funny that us being the largest nation founded by criminals, and once were the largest gaol ever... are scared of a few "criminals". But any ways being a refugee doesn't mean that you're escaping war as put by a few people but as websters revised Unabridged dictionary puts it;
Ref`u*gee"\ (r?f`?*j?"), n. [F. r['e]fugi['e], fr. se r['e]fugier to take refuge. See Refuge, n.] 1. One who flees to a shelter, or place of safety.

2. Especially, one who, in times of persecution or political commotion, flees to a foreign power or country for safety; as, the French refugees who left France after the revocation of the edict of Nantes.

auswegian

Nothing justifies keeping a man who has committed no crime behind bars for seven years. _Seven years_. Just think for a minute as to how long that is. It boggles my mind that people think parochial arguments like "we mustn't set a dangerous precedent" can in any way justify these inhuman policies. They represent the way Australia has come to consider refugees and asylum seekers, with suspicion and without an ounce of compassion. We've become a nation of heartless bastards and paranoid wankers, and it's going to come back to bite us in the arse one day.

__________________
"Look, I'm pretty relaxed for a guy who just lost money on a rave. And who's currently speeding down the highway drunk off my tits. And I'm being chased by someone in a blue Corolla. Woohoo! I just ran a red light!"

woody1

We have rules like every other nation, without them you can have mayhem. Although it doesn't take away in human way they are treated, that must change.

Mephisto2

Not sure what you mean by this woody. Are you supporting the policy or opposing it?

The issue remains that it's entirely within the power of Minister Vanstone to offer a "compassionate visa" for anyone. Though, to be honest, a Minister who goes on record comparing refugees to dogs that should be locked up is not really that likely to do that, is she?

Still angry.


Mr Mephisto

Kostya

You know what angers me...

Waiting...

Waiting...

Waiting...

Meridae'n

Sorry boys, I've been on 12 hour shifts all week and have been too buggered to read/post anything serious. I'll get back over the weekend and reply (I actually will do it this time!). I'm especially looking forward to Mr Mephisto's blaming of everything on Howard and Kostya's tourist analogy

Cheers.

__________________
What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

Mr_Wall

I'm not Mephisto but it is Howards fault

almostaugust

Yeah, Australia definately has an ugly side to it. The reason why One nation collapsed was because Howard adapted most of thier policies. Howard is undoubtedly a racist, his early 1980s ideas about asian people speak for themselves.
I think 'the dangerous precedent' was set in 1939 when Jews were refused asylum fleeing nazi germany and were forced to turn back. This is one of the main reason we have this law. We should be giving them 'a fair go', and at least treating them like bloody human beings.

korzen

How do you define a victimless crime? Sometimes we do not see the person being hurt, but none-the-less it is considered illegal. Fraud is often called a victimless crime, but at the end of the day it is still a crime.
I am at uni and listen to people every day crap on about these poor imprisoned refugees. THEY ARENT REFUGEES, THEY ARE ILLEGAL REFUGEES!
Do we need to fucking relabel them so retards cant confuse the two?
Look at Germany's free refugee policy a while ago, all it did was cause extremism and racism to flourish due to their downturn in jobs, and these refugees supposedly being the ones stealing these jobs. People have to be careful which streets to walk down or end up beaten or DEAD from skinheads.
You think we are racist now? Wait and see the worst come out when we have ILLEGAL refugees working at half the wage we do.

Mr_Wall

Whats an Illegal refugee? there is no such thing... Read earlier post to meaning of refugee....
Illegal immigrants yes, but completely different to a refugee in reasons why they are trying to get entry

Kostya

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, but it kind of sounds like you're saying that refugees aren't good because they make people racist...

RocketMan

Let me tell you something of my experiences. My uncle from the UK married an Aussie lass. He's over 65 and not in the best of health. Financially he's got a enough money to get a deposit on a home in a good suburb in Melbourne and basic super. He came out, got married, applied to stay and volia 3 months later he's in. Long term he'll be a drain on health-care resources, will be participating in unskilled labour and won't be paying much tax.

My mate from Italy married a school friend and it took him 18 months, a trip back to Italy in order to reapply and a whole lot of hassle to get in. He's highly skilled, young, starting a family and even has family out here (the reason for his inital visit) but it was still quite an effort to become a permanent resident.

Some poor buggers risk their life to get here, often in fear for their lives. Obviously they should be filling out forms and waiting for the UN to find them a new home like all the other good little refugees but sometimes famines, genocide and war aren't that fun. Commonly they are young (the old ones often don't survive the journey) and highly skilled. Whatever enthuisam and desire to contribute to our community is deliberately destroyed by sending them to a prision and treating them like animals.

In my view the system is clearly racist. Johnny's monarchist mates are still favouring applications from the "old country" above all else. We hardly take in any refugees at all - up until recently something like 2-3000/ year - now about 6,000 (try-hard election promise). We take in 1 refugee to every 1,961 Aussies. In Canada (similar population size to us) it is 1:980 and in Britain it is 1:604.

My understanding of the New Zealand system is that refugees are allowed to hold jobs and interact with the community whilst awaiting the outcome of their application to become a permanent resident. This has been very sucessful and there is a very low rate of "disapperances". It hasn't seemed to have opened the floodgates. Admittedly it is geographically harder to get there so they have less refugees but there has to be something better than what we've got now. If we followed NZ's lead the Australian Government would'nt waste my bloody taxes jailing some poor bloke for 7 years and paying out $400,000- more than 7 years work for me!!!!

Kostya

Hmmmm, I recall a certain promise someone made some time ago about this thread...

Whatever happened?

alpha666

it truly boils my blood to read some of the responces to this artical!
7 years of this guys life are gone! he can never get them back NEVER and there is a good chance that he will be in there for the rest of his life!!! DAMN.
really have we become that much of a heartless country that we cant do somthing to help him!

holgs

I think RocketMan has a very good point. In this county we let people who are accused of all sorts of crimes continue to exist in society on bail, because we have a presumption of innocence. Shouldn't this presumption apply to people from other countries who come to this country seeking our compassion?

This issue doesn't make me embarrased to be an Austrailan, it makes me angry that some of our politicians are prepared to use fear as a political weapon, and to exploit an issue such as this for their own gain.

Anibal5

Maybe we need to google the words
refugee and
illegal immigrant

this issue is multi-factorial
1. the people making the money are not the ones in detention
2. many are often i imagine aliens of some sort in there own country
i.e. civil war, destroyed records office, massive inflation
3. they often sold everything to get here
4. and there country of origin often says
a. we dont know who they are
b. where are there official papers .. sorry dropped them when i swam the last 10km
c. they are not "refugees" from anything .. may or may not be true ..
d. they may be "criminals" wrongly or right in their country
e. there country will not pay to have them returned, which becomes moot when you consider costs after even 6 months in detention
f. they have not entered through the correct channels which we all know can be subjective, time-wasting and anal .. but they are the channels until they change
Non-landlocked countries have the option of a wall and a firm "no"
Not so easy for Australia when they have floated on a barrel the last 80km and would need to be taken to international waters .. to where? at whose cost? etc ..

__________________
Forgiveness is like the fragrance a flower gives after it's been stepped on.

Anibal5

Many comments above are incorrectly comparing "citizens" and rights of
with "refugee" and the rights of ... apples and oranges people

a bit like going to sweden on a tourist visa and demanding "rights" that you get at home if your arrested for something and whinging like a bastard when you dont get it, and why dont you get it? Because your not a Swedish citizen .....

Right and wrong are justified perspectives
If you want to put yourself at the mercy of others and get surprised when you dont get a positive outcome why is it their fault?

__________________
Forgiveness is like the fragrance a flower gives after it's been stepped on.

Kostya

Because Australia is a signatory to the Declaration of Human Rights, along with Sweden, which affords people. regardless of their status as 'citizens' certain rights due to their status as human beings, these people are currently being denied those rights.

Also, I guess by your logic, the Australian soldiers who surrendered at Singapore, 'putting themselves at the mercy of others' and were then treated with horrific brutality have shouldn't have been outraged...

Wasn't the fault of the perpetrators or anything...

Anibal5

good distinction kostya
my unclear point above was that

a. when you put yourself at the mercy of others and their subjective analysis its just that .. their mercy
of course you should be treated as a human being and many comparisons above regarding criminal law are loose at best but valid when considering a global sliding scale of culturally acceptable and non-acceptable behaviour and what seems to be the punishment for said infractions

at the end of it though ... you are at the mercy of your hosts .. no matter how justified your decision was and the global rights that you should be entitled too i.e. declarations that you have stated above

I am never ashamed to be Australian

Forgetting that politicians are human beings and are just self-serving robots whose sole drive is to be re-elected .... I cant see any thing positive to come from this limbo

The true crime as above stated is that;
The ones that make it I am sure are a minority
The masterminds behind this organisation are not in the detention centre

__________________
Forgiveness is like the fragrance a flower gives after it's been stepped on.