On the Asylum Debate

User Ardinius calls out user waitwhodidwhat for rationalizing the plight of Assylum seekers in Australia



waitwhodidwhat

I'm against the current treatment of asylum seekers but there's just something inside me which doesn't feel right with allowing people who riot and burn down facilities to live in the country I live in and love, regardless of the circumstances. But of course I'm not in their position.

This debate can't be deduced to a document signed 60 years ago. I don't know.. It's just not as simple as it appeared in the past maybe and I agree with Kevin Rudd calling the UN to at least re-examine the treaties signed which deal with refugees.
 
Ardinius

~Put innocent people into detention for a indefinite period of time

~Refuse to process their Asylum Applications

~Wait for them to freak the fuck out when they realise they've been imprisoned for no goddamn reason.

~????

~Profit when suckers like you try and make themselves feel good about voting for the party with the cruelest asylum seeker policy.

waitwhodidwhat
 
Suckers like me trying to make myself feel good about voting for the party with the cruelest asylum seeker policy? Hardly. That's pretty much the opposite of what I stated.

So, what's your big plan to stem the flow of people getting on boats in Indonesia, risking their lives and the efforts of border protection authorities? And if you do have a plan, how exactly do you think it will play out in reality rather than some utopian dreamland all these theoretical plans seem to work out in?
 
Ardinius
 

I'm against the current treatment of asylum seekers but there's just something inside me which doesn't feel right with allowing people who riot and burn down facilities to live in the country I live in and love, regardless of the circumstances.

You see this? This is called rationalisation. It's what happens when you've got two conflicting ideas in your head that don't sit well, and you come up with a bullshit argument to make yourself feel better about it.
 

So, what's your big plan?

Well since we pretend to care so much about the lives of a bunch of people we know next to nothing about, why don't we personally escort them on government approved vessels so that their claims for asylum can be processed in a timely fashion on the shores of our proud and compassionate nation? Instead of another hardliner policy in addition to the four decades of failed hardline policies to 'STAHP TAH BOATS' that have done nothing but bury the black market in people smuggling further underground, how about a policy that works in conjunction with our regional neighbors to completely uproot the system so that regulated and policy driven governmental bodies facilitate the movement of people in the safest possible manner?

Oh but wait. Do I hear more rationalisation creeping into your cranium? That can't possibly work! We can't have those lunatic brown people with their deranged child sacrificing cultural rituals flood our prosperous nation of pure and dignified white people can we? And what about the cost of bringing those terrible people here? Why should my sweet, hard earned Tax dollars be spent on those horrid brown people traveling here? God bless the Queen!

Never mind the fact that boat arrivals only account for a measly 3% of annual immigration in this country. Nevermind that the detention of asylum seekers alone is costing us 2.124 BILLION a year. Never mind the fact that with the $119,000 spent on persecuting each and every one of these poor people in a detention centre; we could afford to ship them on a luxury 13 night cruise; halfway across the coast of the fucking continent on board the Crystal Symphony; twenty nine times over.

God bless the soul of our beloved virgin Mary, we couldn't possibly have a policy that actually looks out for these people now could we?
 

Castrovalva
  

So, your plan is to deregulate Australia's borders, and then start a taxpayer-funded escort service?

Ardinius
 

So you wanna explain to me what part of:

so that their claims for asylum can be processed in a timely fashion on the shores of our proud and compassionate nation

translates into:

deregulate Australia's borders

When I've written:

so that regulated and policy driven governmental bodies facilitate the movement of people in the safest possible manner

In the very next sentence?
If you weren't overcome by your concealed xenophobic sentiments informed by the sensationalism on the six o'clock news of crazehhh and dangerous brown people burning shit down, you would've paid more attention to the rest of the paragraph where I spent considerable time outlining more regulation and oversight over the people who cross the border.

 
Castrovalva

You know, idiots like you who throw around terms like 'xenophobic' at anyone who happens to disagree with their extremist views make me laugh. You cry about the far right conservatives who have all but hijacked broader discourse in Australia's media, while attempting to similarly impose a one-sided, binaristic narrative of your own, and doing it while similarly making spurious claims to some kind of exclusively valuable morality. So, congratulations on being an empty, predictable cliche.

Your idiotic and hyperbolic post is nauseating and worthless on multiple levels, but the one that I find the most hilarious is that you want have your cake and eat it too; you insist that we should have no moral qualms about throwing open Australia's doors, while simultaneously defending those who would burn down a processing facility. You babble about 'looking after these people', while utterly ignoring the multiple complexities of this kind of immigration - from a resource standpoint, a social standpoint, a cultural standpoint. Basically, you spout empty epithets which make you feel morally superior, but are basically unworkable.

Most importantly, you aggressively attack anyone who disagrees with you by attempting to paint them as cartoon racists, and attempting to undermine their credibility by suggesting that anyone who disagrees with anything you say is simply doing so because they're 'afraid of brown people'. Ignoring the arrogance, idiocy, and anti-intellectualism of this position, it's just plain corrosive to having any rational debate on any of these issues.

You don't want a discussion. You want people to agree with you, while marveling at your superior morality. You are an intellectual degenerate, a pathetic coward, and a loud, pointless egomaniac. Please remove yourself from Reddit, and do not look back.

 
Ardinius
 

Wow that Xenophobe comment really cut you deep, didn't it? I wonder why.

you insist that we should have no moral qualms about throwing open Australia's doors, while simultaneously defending those who would burn down a processing facility.

Not only did I not defend such actions, I didn't insist we should throw Australia's doors open either. Facilitating the arrival of people here using safe government approved maritime vessels and processing asylum applications on Australian soil gives us more control over who does and doesn't come into this country at a cheaper rate than the current policy. I've made this 'arrogant, idiotic and anti-intellectual' point three times now and it's not going to get through to you unless you stop shoveling shit into my mouth.

You babble about 'looking after these people', while utterly ignoring the multiple complexities of this kind of immigration - from a resource standpoint, a social standpoint, a cultural standpoint.

Given that, in my 'idiotic and hyperbolic' post, I've sourced detailed material about what the current policy is costing us and put it into perspective for you; given that I've specifically sourced Amnesty International (an organizations that is solely concerned with social issues) to point out that maritime arrivals in this country accounts for 3% of this nations immigration; given that the whole post was outlined to you in the context of Australia's cultural issue with having people of a different background settle in this country, I'd say I did a pretty good job of trying to address the social, cultural and resource oriented complexities in the short amount of time I had. The same can't be said of your contribution.

Ignoring the arrogance, idiocy, and anti-intellectualism of this position, it's just plain corrosive to having any rational debate on any of these issues.

Yes, ignoring the research material, and the policy alternative I've provided, let's spend the majority of our post; misconstruing the content of my argument and berating me personally; so that we can put our hands on our chests and claim that our intentions are in the spirit of wholesome 'rational debate'. Since you're so concerned about it, how about responding with some rational arguments that actually address the content of my post to set the tone?

You cry about the far right conservatives who have all but hijacked broader discourse in Australia's media,

I'm actually rather comfortable talking about this stuff with far right conservatives because at the very least I don't need to deal with their closet racist bullshit. At least they don't pretend to care about a group of people they know next to nothing about. At least they don't believe themselves to be progressive, considered and intellectual persons trying to justify the persecution of among some of the most victimised people in the world. 

I could waste my time going after far right wing nutbags, but it's the people like you I give a fuck about. Progressive and intelligent people like you rationalising and normalising the mistreatment of refugees on an institutional and systematic level is a far greater threat than some fuck off crazy right wing nutter and their overtly racist views. 

Unfortunately we have a situation where Rudd's brilliant political move has gone further right than anything those very same extreme right wing fuckers could dream for, while at the same time getting the majority of decent and moderately intelligible people caught in the middle trying to rationalise and normalise what is a blatantly racist policy designed specifically to sway their opinion so Labor can hit the jackpot at the election. 

The only thing corrosive here is a debate which is trying to justify and normalise such an insane policy. There is no middle ground left here anymore. You can't pretend to feign compassion for refugees while also supporting the cruelest refugee policy Australia has ever seen in it's history.
This is where you make a choice between upholding the specifically tailored human rights afforded by the UN to among some of the most vulnerable human beings on the planet; or you subscribe to this fictitious Xenophobic notion by the right that being a victim of persecution in other countries makes you 'incompatible' for living in Australia; it makes you one of those extreme people who need to be subject to further persecution on offshore detention centres with a record in human right's violations in what amounts to one of the world's strictest immigration detention regimes all under the bullshit pretense that we need to 'teach these people' never to set foot on a boat again.

Such an argument is not a justification for violating the UN sanctioned human rights of asylum seekers to be settled in this country by fucking them off to yet another poor country regardless of their status as actual refugees.

So either you are buying into this fictitious Xenophobic rhetoric of the 'extreme other' traditionally championed by the far right to inform your misplaced justification and rationalisation of the PNG solution, or you're not. 

Do forgive my 'one-sided, binaristic narrative' here but there is simply no more room for compromise left on this issue - having worked throughout my life with both young and adult refugees, having personally visited a detention centre on several occasions and actually having spoken to some of these 'deranged and psychotic boat people', I'm rather passionate about this issue - not due to some misplaced feigned sense of compassion but because, (with the exception of Australia's policy towards the Indigenous in the past) there is no other issue that even remotely compares to the level of systematic injustice that is being perpetrated by this country towards these people.


 Castrovalva

Wow that Xenophobe comment really cut you deep, didn't it? I wonder why.

As I have already said - grow up. You are attempting to throw around empty terms like 'xenophobe' to undermine the credibility of anyone who remotely disagrees with you. It's utterly pathetic.

Facilitating the arrival of people here using safe government approved maritime vessels and processing asylum applications on Australian soil gives us more control over who does and doesn't come into this country at a cheaper rate than the current policy.

So, you believe in border protection and the regulation of Australia's immigration - but only on your terms? Could you tell me about about how you expect Australian tax payers to accept the notion that they should be paying for an escort service for refugees? No, wait. You won't. You'll just lazily bawl about 'racism' again.

Since you're so concerned about it, how about responding with some rational arguments that actually address the content of my post to set the tone?

This would be sad if it wasn't so hilariously hypocritical. You have been blatantly dismissing anyone's responses that don't align with your worldview by using 'xenophobe' as a get out of jail free card. Despicable and infantile.

I'd say I did a pretty good job of trying to address the social, cultural and resource oriented complexities in the short amount of time I had. The same can't be said of your contribution.

Actually, you did a terrible job of that - despite your outrageous hubris. What you did was predictably throw around a mixture of feelgood and condemnatory statements which intend to simplify issues, categorise responses based on the cartoon enemies you are shadowboxing, and assume some kind of moral high ground based on very little.

I could waste my time going after far right wing nutbags, but it's the people like you I give a fuck about.

Wow. You condescending, arrogant piece of shit. The delusion here is hilarious. You actually believe that you are charged with some kind of special quality which enables you to educate the rest of us poor, damaged people who have the audacity to not agree with you. My god.

what is a blatantly racist policy designed specifically to sway their opinion so Labor can hit the jackpot at the election.

Oh? How is it 'racist'? Which races does it target, specifically? Could you point to the parts of the policy that specifically address race? Go ahead, I'm thrilled to hear how you justify this one.

or you subscribe to this fictitious Xenophobic notion by the right that being a victim of persecution in other countries makes you 'incompatible' for living in Australia

This is just gibberish. Sorry, but you're talking nonsense.

Do forgive my 'one-sided, binaristic narrative' here but there is simply no more room for compromise left on this issue - having worked throughout my life with both young and adult refugees, having personally visited a detention centre on several occasions and actually having spoken to some of these 'deranged and psychotic boat people', I'm rather passionate about this issue

And, there it is. There's the smoking gun.

What you've just done, friend, is reveal your true colours.

You believe that you have unique and privileged insights which you deem necessary to force down the throats of the poor, xenophobic body politic, because you're so 'passionate'. Without knowing anything about me, you assume that you are charged with some kind of unique perspective which allows you to Tell Us How It Is, and that if anyone disagrees with you, or has the nerve to contradict you, it MUST be simply because they're afraid of brown people. That's what you believe, so don't bother disgracing yourself by pretending that it isn't.

In behaving like this, you destroy your own credibility, you destroy the rationality of domestic debates, and by insisting that the discourse be framed only in terms that you are comfortable with, you will be immediately, and justifiably, received with hostility. You've made a lot of assumptions about who and what I am - you immediately started calling me a 'xenophobe', and even went so far as to repeat it in this post, simply because I committed the crime of asking you a question that you deem it offensive to ask. 

What you don't understand - and will probably never understand - is that you're dealing with an extremely complex, contradictory, and unstable discursive architecture in terms of Australia's relationship with immigration. You believe yourself to be some kind of uniquely pure moral avenger, and in doing so - whilst attempting to demonise and caricature those who may disagree with you - you do yourself no service, you absolutely contribute to the souring of relations between Australia and refugee communities, and you severely limit our ability to have any sort of logical debate.

You need to grow up. You need to grow up, think about what you're doing and why, and eat a little bit of humble pie. Cultivate a less sanctimonious mode of conduct, and perhaps you won't look like such a pompous, condescending waste of space.

Ardinius

There is nothing extreme about the proposition that we should process Asylum seekers on Australian soil and ensure their safe passage over here.

There is something very extreme about the proposition to process and settle all refugees in PNG despite there refugee status in violation of UN conventions.

My position is that you cannot justify the latter without recognizing the Xenophobic sentiment that underlies it. I've provided arguments and sourced material to justify my position. 

You have not.

Castrovalva

I like the fact that you conveniently ignored 90% of my post, while continuing to suggest that anyone who disagrees with you is 'xenophobic'. This proves that you haven't understand a single thing that I have said.

Again, your position is that there is no way that anyone could in any way be supportive of Rudd's PNG solution without being 'xenophobic'. Again, your tactic is to undermine the credibility of the commenter through the use of emotive, yet ultimately empty language.
Your position, friend, is that you are right - you have claimed ownership of a special form of morality which allows you to decide who and what is 'racist' and 'not racist', and you will use that to defend your position against those who would dare to question it.

It's intellectually feeble, cowardly, condescending, and ultimately paints you as an insecure, sanctimonious prat. Which, despite my attempts to correct you, you continue to be.

Ardinius
 

Yeah, I conveniently ignored 90% of your post because that was the section that did nothing to engage with the topic at hand.

It did do a great job however, of undermining

the credibility of the commenter through the use of emotive, yet ultimately empty language.

Smashing. 

Hey, I'll admit I can be an asshole that gets a kick out of making his points by resorting to emotive and pompous arguments, but I find solace in the fact that I'm not as bad as you are. Jesus Christ.