That's unbelievable. :lol:

You really think stacks of boats are coming in and swathes of people are drowning and the government is hiding it all from the media?

Not even the Greens are that cynical and delusional :lol:

But if it makes you feel like the government is failing over border polices, and that feeling is more important than the actual policies that have put an end to the needless, senseless deaths at sea, then go for it. :lol:

So why the media blackouts and gag orders?

-PB

Obviously the Government are embarressed about all the positive news stories that kept flooding out #modest

Once again the government has turned down an offer from the Kiwis to take 150 legitimate refugees. Disgraceful.

What's the justification?

Seems ridiculous.

The argument is that it will encourage more people to come in case they may get to NZ.

Our whole policy is designed to be as cruel as possible, in order to act as a deterrent.

So essentially, the govt is committed to treating people at least as bad as they are being treated in the countries they leave. That is the only way their deterrent policy can work.

Mr Dutton today:

“Advocates should reflect on their messages of false hope and misleading portrayal of the situation in Nauru. While some may be encouraged by messages of false hope and some may resort to extreme action, this Government will not be dissuaded from its stated border protection policies,” he said in Canberra. “We are not going to allow people to drown at sea again.”

It's completely reconcilable that the recent self immolation of some refugees are the direct consequences of advocates peddling false home and unfulfilled promises. Obviously the government isnt going to budge on its successful border policies so it doesnt surprise me that its opponents would try immolation as a way of trying to blackmail the government into changing its policy.

After all if these people are unconcerned about entire boat loads of people drowning at sea then they'd hardly be concerned at all about some poor chap dousing himself with petrol and setting himself alight. They would probably more concerned about making sure someone's got their camera phone out ready to film it all.

It's a bit of a non sequitur to suggest that because the government has cancelled it weekly press conference that means boats are still coming. The immigration minister is obligated to tell parliament of any boat arrivals or turn backs, which he hasn't needed to do since there's been no arrivals or turn backs in recent memory. Guarantee you if there's so much as a dingy sinks or makes it one inch into Australian waters it would be plastered all over the liberal media and ABC within the half hour.

What an absolute crock. Talk about victim blaming.

Couldnt possibly have anything to do with the gulags they are kept in! Nothing to see here, keep moving!

Edited by Azzamarch: 3/5/2016 01:41:04 PM

Are you sure about that? One of the strategies to prevent reporting of boat arrivals was to turn it into a "military matter". Certainly the APH page with statistics, relies on press releases from the minister. That's very different to reporting it in parliament.

The entire left is in meltdown on twitter.

It's glorious

Very much this.

They made the choice to break the law by taking the actions that they took.

Which law are they breaking?

They entered Australia or at least attempted to enter Australia illegally. My ancestors immigrated here via the proper legal process. The process that Everybody who wants to enter Australia should follow.

Anyone who thinks boats are still coming is seriously deranged and is devoid of a conscience. You should be applauding the government for stopping the boats and saving lives rather than putting politics before human lives and wishing really hard that boats will continue to come and risk peoples lives just to embarrass the government.

Refugee lives matter and someone who supports open borders ought to consider whether they have any morals.

Guarantee none of them would open their homes to asylum seekers. It's compassion at arms length.

I really can't believe that after all these years of debate, people still don't understand the law. It doesn't help that the government themselves use the term illegal but it's really semantic doublespeak that they can get away with it.

Here's a pretty comprehensive write up about why it's wrong
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-24/tony-abbott-incorrect-on-asylum-seekers-breaking-australian-law/5214802

A poignant (perhaps graphic so I'll only link it) cartoon by Cathy Wilcox.

Entering Australia legally ensures that all appropriate checks can be made on a person before granting entry to Australia. Alot of the people in detention cannot even be appropriately identified.

There are fewer people against mandatory detention, detaining people until they can be identified appropriately is completely reasonable. However:
1. The officials, the vast majority of the time, can identify these people. When the Iranian guy died from infection, immigration officials were able to contact his family.
2. The conditions they are kept in is not open and transparent which raises suspicion. Why can't we see this for ourselves?
3. People are being held indefinitely, years after they arrived in these camps.

Tell me how any of this is decent? Particularly when they've committed no crime.

How do you know they have stopped coming?

Australia has rules and guidelines for how to properly enter the country. This people did not follow those rules and guidelines. I'm all for immigration of people who know and respect the proper channels.

Immigration Minister Scott Morrison was found to be correct when he described people who come without a valid visa as having "illegally" entered Australia. However, Fact Check also found such people did not break any law.

While it is accurate to describe asylum seekers who enter Australia without a valid visa as "unlawful" or even "illegal entrants", it is not a criminal offence to enter Australia without a visa

Talk about splitting hairs.:oops: Even if they did come here "legally" doesn't mean we have to resettle them here or we are obligated to help them. Personally anyone who comes to Australia by way of a third country, jumps queue by giving money to a people smuggle and throws away their personal documentation to avoid being properly vexed has broken the law.

Of course they've stopped coming.:lol:

Exactly semantic doublespeak. The Migration act uses the terms lawful and unlawful entry explicitly in its text. It doesn't actually saw they broke any criminal law. The fact that the act says they can detain people indefinitely doesn't mean they broke a law either.

Anything else, it's really getting boring writing the same shit with people that aren't actually interested in understanding the situation accurately.

Looking forward to the budget tonight so we can see if the Coalition have any unique and decent policy ideas. Not holding my breath.

And we are supposed to help them. We are a signatory to the UN convention on refugees. We have signed laws that we must obey. There is a reason the international court of criminals is investigating the Abbott government.



If they are legitimate asylum seekers than they have to be released otherwise we are breaking are own laws.

I'm not going to entertain wild desperate conspiracy theories about boats still coming by the hundreds. People ought to congratulate the government for saving lives rather than taking the political high road of alleging they are engaged in a cover up.

It's simply a denial that the governments policy is successful and morally better than any of the destructive, murderous, bloody policies the left have spewed in recent times.

And that's the very problem. By not following proper procedure that fact cannot be properly established.

Irrespective of legal issues I can't see what the government hopes to achieve by detaining these people indefinitely.

You need to separate the issue of mandatory detention with that of cruel and unusual punishment with no transparency.

Criminals in jails have more rights, and there is greater transparency about the conditions they are held in.

Just because someone entered Australian waters by boat (which is not illegal by the way) it doesn't mean that the way they are being treated is ok.

The fact that 2 people now have literally SET THEMSELVES ON FIRE should be ringing alarm bells, regardless of whether you agree with mandatory detention or not.

Your logic that its no problem because they "should have come here legally" leads to dangerous conclusions. You can justify anything if that is all it takes.

Why don't we blow boats up? They should have come here legally.

Why don't we summarily execute asylum seekers and put their heads on stakes on the beaches of Indonesia? Surely that is a good deterrent. And if they came here legally that wouldn't have happened...

The ease at which you don't think there might be a fundamental, systemic issue due to lack of transparency in what is actually happening, is breathtaking.