Rudd Assylum Seeker Policy

[ninwa]

I did mention in my previous post that there are basic rights that should be afforded to persons regardless of their nationality. (I am not using "everyone" because I believe that every right has its limitations, and there is always a case in which it should not apply.) Jurisprudence on rights is usually a balancing acts between governmental interests and individual interests. See, for example, Michigan Dept. of State Police v. Sitz.

I've said my piece and I don't want to get into this debate further, but just a tip for future, it really doesn't help your argument to quote irrelevant case law from not only an entirely different jurisdiction but also an entirely different system of law.

[MJRomeo81]

Could someone please edit the thread title with the correct spelling of asylum.

[vox nihili]

I've said my piece and I don't want to get into this debate further, but just a tip for future, it really doesn't help your argument to quote irrelevant case law from not only an entirely different jurisdiction but also an entirely different system of law.

Polonium just got lawyered!

[Russ]

Could someone please edit the thread title with the correct spelling of asylum.

I considered doing it a while back, but I find the typo somewhat darkly/satirically amusing at this point

[vox nihili]

Could someone please edit the thread title with the correct spelling of asylum.

Well that's embarrassing...

[Professor Polonsky]

I've said my piece and I don't want to get into this debate further

Well that's a shame

but just a tip for future, it really doesn't help your argument to quote irrelevant case law from not only an entirely different jurisdiction but also an entirely different system of law.

Sure, my understanding of jurisprudence on human rights is largely limited to SCOTUS, and to some degree ECHR. We don't have enumerated rights (well, just about) in Commonwealth law, and I'm not so familiar with the Victorian Charter nor case law based on it to speak about it.

But I didn't even need to look that far. The Charter itself allows exceptions.

If you're aware of any relevant cases in international law, I'd be glad to hear about it.

t-rav, I'm glad you've just proven to everybody all you can contribute to this discussion is petty namecalling and "ooooohs" I haven't seen since third grade, you half-witted dick.

But anyways, I'm also done here, considering no one has actually defended their position against the policy beyond "ermahgerd it's in the Convention" or "ermahgerd them poor people how could you my heart is bleeding".

[psyxwar]

(Image removed from quote.)

I'm pretty shocked by this reaction :O

[vox nihili]

t-rav, I'm glad you've just proven to everybody all you can contribute to this discussion is petty namecalling and "ooooohs" I haven't seen since third grade, you half-witted dick.

Righto then.

The reason I've largely reserved comment in this debate is that plenty of my fellows here have managed to consistently strip your arguments down into nothing more than a pile of pompous jargon. Interjecting with "namecalling and ooooohs" is because there really isn't anything to add there. Ninwa very, very successfully demonstrated to everyone that you didn't have a clue what you were on about, and I was very right in making that interjection. Adding anything more would have been an insult to the job ninwa did on your ridiculous arguments. There are many people here more capable than me of presenting an argument from a legal standpoint, which by and large seems to be what you've gone for.
To state the obvious as well, you completely contradict yourself by calling me a half-witted dick.

A word of advice though, it's all well and good to try to present an extremely jargonistic and seemingly intelligent argument, but what does it really achieve? There's no denying that you've been able to use your language to quite a high standard. Plenty of legalese, plenty of nice fluffy syntax...that's really all well and good. Hey, you even went with the chiefly British "half-witted" to class up your insult. At the end of the day though, you've presented a series of fundamentally flawed and factually incorrect arguments. You've constantly tried to say that you're all for helping people out, then backing that up by preaching the typical arguments of Australia's population of bigots and xenophobes.

It's not enough to say everything intelligently without saying anything intelligent.

[Professor Polonsky]

I'm pretty shocked by this reaction :O

Meh, it's a reaction to Ayn Rand.

<snip>

Yeah, I wasn't expecting much more. It's rather funny, all I've basically been asking for is a consistent and sustainable approach to why we should grant asylum and to whom. What I've received in return are personal attacks based on my "lack of humanity", being labelled a "xenophobe" and "one of them bigots".

And then people were wondering why someone with my views state that he can't stand liberals.

[Russ]

You realise I was calling you and Mao Randian in the whole "zero obligation" thing, right?

[vox nihili]

Yeah, I wasn't expecting much more. It's rather funny, all I've basically been asking for is a consistent and sustainable approach to why we should grant asylum and to whom. What I've received in return are personal attacks based on my "lack of humanity", being labelled a "xenophobe" and "one of them bigots".

I can't say that I disagree with everything you've said. You've actually made some fantastic points. There are two issues I take with what you have said though. You support those points with factual errors and with arguments that do show a lack of humanity.

In my approach to policy and by extension into human rights, I like to be pragmatic. I like the numbers. For example, cancer mainly kills old people and is less of a burden on the people than mental health issues. By that (and the numbers that support it), we should be focusing on mental health more than we should cancer. So I think I get your frustration to some extent. I think we're on the same page there. There's nothing good about an emotionally charged debate most of the time. It is better to have, as you've said, "a consistent and sustainable approach". I don't believe that you've completely done that. The numbers shouldn't come in the way of the moral/ethical arguments. That's why people are objecting to your pragmatics, because you're using those to also try to explain the ethical side of the debate, and that approach isn't really a good way to go.

[vox nihili]

I agree with you a lot here. I did contribute quite significantly to polonium's emotionally-charged points. But I found it hard to control my emotions in a sensitive and a humanitarian issue like asylum seekers, considering some of the things said. But at the end of the day everyone has their own opinions and I guess I have learned that I shouldn't always try to change that - certainly not over a screen and a keyboard! haha.

It's pretty easy to get emotionally charged with this though. It is such an important and sensitive issue, and Polonium has played the pompous debating style quite well—I think, and I'm sure he can confirm, that a very large goal of his "sustained approach" is to sustain his emotions whilst waiting for the other person to want to go off.

[Professor Polonsky]

You realise I was calling you and Mao Randian in the whole "zero obligation" thing, right?

I assumed it applies more to Mao, but yes, I understood why you said it.

I don't think it's the entirely correct way to categorise my belief, though. In terms of political theory, I do believe a sovereign state only has an obligation to its nationals in terms of domestic policy and some international/foreign policy as well. Its nationals may view (and I would share this view) that it holds some (or however much they believe) obligation towards foreign nationals. It can therefore join international treaties such as the Refugee Convention, but it also has a right to withdraw from it.

There are exceptions, mostly in the realm of warfare and serious human right abuses, in which the good coming out of maintaining self-determination cannot trump the ethical wrongs. In those cases, it's up to the international community to intervene.

t-rav, it's all good. And I suppose it's good to hear that I can make a reasoned argument, sometimes at least.

I'd like to be made aware of those factual errors when I make them, if possible. I suppose that certain events and experiences have made me not pay much attention to emotional factors in my ethical consideration, and perhaps I've gone too far overboard with that.

I just saw your last post, and this is important to me so I will reply to it. I do not, and will not, ever engage in flame-baiting or any sort of personally manipulative tactics.

[Mao]

You realise I was calling you and Mao Randian in the whole "zero obligation" thing, right?

Sure. I will be the token Randian to be sneered at if that's what's needed to get a straight answer instead of smart-ass remarks out of you.

Why is "zero obligation" a bad thing?

The fact that Randian philosophy (as poorly thought out and communicated as it is) has such a following means that quite a few people also feel the same "zero obligation" or "lack of humanity" or greed or selfishness or any name you wish to give it. Yet the criticisms I've seen for it are only ever snark remarks such as the commentary you provided, or choruses of people trying to out-do each other in Rand-bashing without mentioning any Randian ideologies.

Surely the cause for this debate boils down to the devide between the Randian ideology and the more utilitarian ideology (or however you choose to classify it). So, a proper critique please. Why is "zero obligation" a bad thing?

[ninwa]

Sure, my understanding of jurisprudence on human rights is largely limited to SCOTUS, and to some degree ECHR. We don't have enumerated rights (well, just about) in Commonwealth law, and I'm not so familiar with the Victorian Charter nor case law based on it to speak about it.

But I didn't even need to look that far. The Charter itself allows exceptions.

If you're aware of any relevant cases in international law, I'd be glad to hear about it.

t-rav, I'm glad you've just proven to everybody all you can contribute to this discussion is petty namecalling and "ooooohs" I haven't seen since third grade, you half-witted dick.

But anyways, I'm also done here, considering no one has actually defended their position against the policy beyond "ermahgerd it's in the Convention" or "ermahgerd them poor people how could you my heart is bleeding".

The Victorian Charter has little to no impact on matters of federal law. And you are completely right that we do not have human rights enshrined federally like the US does. So I'm even more baffled at why you decided it would be a good idea to quote US cases. Perhaps you thought it made your argument look more valid than it actually is.

In my opinion, arguments from law and arguments from humanity and compassion (which form the entire foundation of international human rights law) are rather valid ones, and I think you are just looking for any excuse to ignore them because they don't suit your views. Your patronising reduction of them to "ermahgerd" statements clearly shows that you have absolutely zero intention of even considering the other side, which is disappointing to me because I thought you were better than that, but it also shows that there's no point continuing this debate.