JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Reaper]

BTW: 'They are breaking our laws, entering illegally' - AFAIK it is not illegal to seek asylum in Australia, with or without a visa, regardless of mode of transport.

My objection is not the act of seeking asylum or even accepting refugees - I fully support the intake of bonafide refugees. I completely and utterly object to the way the boat people come to Australia. To put lives (particularly those of children) at risk by deliberately putting them on substandard boats and then exacerbate the situation by sabotaging these boats at sea to force a rescue is unforgivable in my eyes. By removing any possibility that a new life in Australia is ever possible is the only way I can think of to break this practise. Plenty don't like it but 6 years of history suggests that only this 'tough love' approach is the one that seems to work.

 

[c2105026]

There is no clause in immigration law that I know of that says 'oh by the way if they destroyed their documents enroute such persons are illegal'.

It may be illegal to destroy personal documentation under their original countries law. It is illegal to destroy an Australian passport intentionally but if you just 'leave it behind' is technically not destroying and as such not illegal. Not sure about the laws of asylum seekers home countries.

That being said at least 20% do turn up with documentation. However there is no data available of the remaining 80% if they had any documentation in the first place, or it was lost/damaged intentionally/unintentionally.

It may be dangerous to make the journey by sea but it may also be dangerous to stay at home, or to stay in a refugee camp. A minority may tamper with boats to hasten a rescue - don't know why they do that, if they are floating about in our waters they'd get intercepted anyway.

 

[Reaper]

There is no clause in immigration law that I know of that says 'oh by the way if they destroyed their documents enroute such persons are illegal'.

near certain there would be a clause that requires people entering the country to show evidence of identity and origin which is usually contained in a passport. I can accept refugees may not have a passport but the rest is just crap.

It may be illegal to destroy personal documentation under their original countries law. It may even be under our law - but if if happened in Indonesia, at original country, or on international/indonesian waters, is outside our jurisdiction.

In Australia at least a passport remains the property of govco (even though the individual pays to get it). Don't ask how I found that out :s

 

[gopher]

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail


Seriously WTF?

 

[Grennan]

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail


Seriously WTF?

Do you disagree that we need to reduce the amount of divorces and by extension single parent pensions etc?

Getting people off on the right foot from the start may save a lot of money down the track.

 

[gopher]

Do you disagree that we need to reduce the amount of divorces and by extension single parent pensions etc?

Getting people off on the right foot from the start may save a lot of money down the track.

no I don't disagree with that
I disagree giving couples a $200 handout to do a counseling course is going to do any good.
make it compulsory and make them pay for it themselves
if people have to pay for it then it may do some good.

when I got married 13 years ago we had to do a course beforehand and we had to pay for it and we're still happily married

 

[Demonica]

If people can afford a wedding they can afford their own counselling. They make counselling if wanting a divorce within a certain amount of time mandatory so why not do the same for marriage? Make people attend a session before they can apply for their marriage license. It's unnecessary for it to come out of tax payers pockets.

 

[Jesterarts]

No Cookies | The Courier-Mail


Seriously WTF?

Yeah, that seems a bit ####ing retarded.

Complete waste of money. If someones marriage is not working a $200 session will not achieve anything.

If people need a 3rd party to sort out their marriage, it's not going to work.

My opinion anyway.

 

[vr94ss]

Call me cynical, but K.Andrews wife is listed as a marriage educator in his 44th Parliament: Members' Interest Statements. Register of Members' Interests – Parliament of Australia
Married 30yrs this year, no counselling needed.

edit: I hope I remember this year or we might need some

 

[gopher]

Call me cynical, but K.Andrews wife is listed as a marriage educator in his 44th Parliament: Members' Interest Statements. Register of Members' Interests – Parliament of Australia
Married 30yrs this year, no counselling needed.

edit: I hope I remember this year or we might need some

Conflict of interest or what?