brb using a government boat to go into Indonesian Waters
brb using a government boat to go into Indonesian Waters
Indians can't bowl - Where has the rumour come from as I myself and many indian friends arwe competent fast bowlers ?
With the English bid I said: Let us be brief. If you give back the Falkland Islands, which belong to us, you will get my vote. They then became sad and left
Asylum seekers have as much threat to Australia as legalising same sex marriages has to family values
President of SKAS - Kat is King | Proud member of CVAAS - One of the best | LRPLTAS - Rosco rocks!
The NZTailender Supporting XI:
H Rutherford, T Latham, N Broom, M Bracewell, D Brownlie, BJ Watling, D de Boorder+, M Henry, B Wheeler, H Bennett, A Milne
R.I.P. Fardin & Craig
@ Topcat. Anyone who enters illegally without passports will of course be assessed for risks quite apart from the fact they're reasonably suspected of breaking the law to get here and procured an illegal service to facilitate their movement. I'm not going to get into what risks they may pose. You don't know either. But don't mistake your ignorance of them as a reason why the govt should not be curious. They have other reasons to want to stop illegal traffic besides. As would any other nation.
I'm not talking hypotheticals, I'm talking facts. ASIO has published it themselves; using the lowest possible estimate for number of assessments I've been able to find, ASIO found 43 adverse assessments of roughly 6000 they did between '09 and '11 (some places claim 6x that but the number of adverse people doesn't change). ASIO's criteria for 'adverse' is wide open too so you'd imagine the number of actually dangerous people to you, me and us would be at least a bit less than that.
You can claim all sorts of hypothetical **** to be fearful of if you want but the facts remain the only terrorists attacks we've ever had in this country have been domestic, like the bombing of the NCA and Sydney Hilton. Certainly noone has ever presented any serious reason to be worried about people who came by boat (or "IMA's" in the ASIO manner). Sure, there are extremists in the community and you can bet everyone from the local command to ASIO are well aware of them and their activities. In my experience, they were uniformly legal migrants.
Yeah, describing the government's attitude to "boat people" as curiosity about potential threats posed or just a general desire to uphold the standards of secure borders is sophistry in the extreme. I don't think anyone is advocating we dissolve the system of legal entry because borders are just totally irrelevant, but the amount of attention devoted to "border security" is insanely disproportionate to the size of the problem, and all of that attention goes to "boats" which make up a fractional portion of our overall immigration and a fractional portion of the people violating the sanctity of our borders and immigration laws.
I mean, what are the main discussed problems caused by illegal immigration? Crime/security issues, spread of disease and employment-related concerns are the main ones I can think of, and when the government cites reasons for the need to secure our borders it's usually related to employment, disease and security. The Dept. of Immigration estimates there's 63,000 illegal residents in Australia, and a small portion of them are known to be working illegally, but the number of overall illegal workers (so including people who came here legally but aren't meant to work) is supposedly much higher, and in six figures - but of course most of those people would be from our primary sources of immigration, England and New Zealand, and they came here on a jet. The number of "boat people" who have claimed asylum is small by comparison but all the attention goes there. Obviously given the small numbers they make up a tiny portion of crime and so on, but are devoted pretty much 100% of the public discourse about immigration.
Australia has a massive immigrant population overall with like 1 in 4 people born in a foreign country. The "stop the boats" argument has so much traction because people who are uncomfortable with the number of people of non-anglo decent in this country collate the issues. They see some dude at work (or worse, on the TV committing a crime!) who looks a bit different from what they think a "proper Aussie" looks like, and associate that person with the "boat people" that are a huge part of our political discussion. It has nothing to do with the actual size of the problem, because those people are almost certainly here legally.
If you think border security is important, fine, but that has nothing to do with "stop the boats" as a political point-scorer.
I know a place where a royal flush
Can never beat a pair
The insinuation at post 13415 that racism is at the reason people want their borders secured is of course a cheap shot revealing their own prejudicial assessment of the issue.
Last edited by the big bambino; 16-01-2014 at 10:59 PM.
If "border security" was the issue, we wouldn't just talk about boat people. And indeed some small amount of attention is devoted to our border security lapses that aren't related to "boat people", and there's nothing fundamentally racial about those criticisms. That's a general critique reflecting a value of a sovereign state, impartially applied. "STOP THE BOATS!" is not.
Last edited by FaaipDeOiad; 16-01-2014 at 11:18 PM.
The focus on boat people is a result of the publicity given to it. Often by advocates of illegal immigrants who fetishise it to the exclusion of other forms of illegal access. They often exploit the issue in an uncannily similar way to the way you describe. To then portray the reaction as racist and a contrast to their own moral and ideological purity and their infallible proscriptions based on them. Border protection is a responsibility of govt. They prosecute any violation. Stopping the boats is necessarily one those violations they deal with. The media and public focus on boat people is a disproportionate attention on just one responsibility of govt and for the self serving reasons described earlier..
Last edited by the big bambino; 17-01-2014 at 01:48 AM.
Surely you're taking the piss. Tony Abbott probably said the phrase "stop the boats" and variations of it more than any other single thing during the last two federal election campaigns. It's been a catchphrase of both major political parties and a hot political issue for the last 15 years or so. It's an engineered political issue because it is a successful one for conservatives who are seen as hawkish on the issue, and engaged (usually with identical rhetoric) by any serious political contender because ignoring the terrible threat of the boats is political suicide among the Today Tonight crowd.
Always "boat people", always from asian and middle-eastern countries, always with the implied threat of terrorism, third world disease or threats to Australian job security, never with the caveat that "yes, we should stop the boats, but we should also make sure that every Kiwi in Bondi is properly equipped with a working Visa, because border security is important and they are after all a larger portion of our illegal workforce". But the focus on "boat people" is the fault of advocates of illegal immigrants who "fetishise" arrival by boat?
Last edited by FaaipDeOiad; 17-01-2014 at 02:27 AM.
Clearly illegal entry by boat is a greater concern than someone overstaying their visa. Boat entries prop up illegal industries which leads to exploitation and not least put thousands of lives at risk during the process.
Last edited by benchmark00; 17-01-2014 at 03:33 AM.
Parmi | #1 draft pick | Jake King is **** | Big Bash League tipping champion of the universeCome and Paint Turtle
You and I both know I won't be reading that ****.
To put another slant on the boat people debate, why the **** does Australia provide more than 500 million in annual aid to a country that clearly couldn't care less about Australia's sovereign rights?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)