The Politics Thread 2023

[Mickey_Raider]

Not seeing anything in there that’s convincing me the specific cases cited in the article are incorrect?

From that list of the those with the most serious offences, it only looks like there are two who look like theymay still have part of a sentence to serve (the two 2015 offences) however I would presume that they were paroled after 6 or 7 years respectively and were subsequently transferred to immigration detention, to live out the rest of their days in purgatory prior to the NZYQ ruling.

Have a look at the rest of them and you will note that the convictions will most certainly be served, especially given the applicability of immigration detention for the purposes of sentencing. More typical than the above two examples would be the case of the non-citizen convicted for 2-3 years but confined to immigration detention for much longer than that.

So my original point stands. The only thing causing the hyperventilation is citizenship status, not any tangible effects on community safety because, as I keep reiterating, even as I type this, a handful of Australian convicts will have been released into the community under the same circumstances (crime committed, sentence served) but none of the fanfare.

[gangrenous]

One counter-example is all that’s needed to make your statement wrong (that they’ve all served their time and are entitled to a release). Seems like you’re acknowledging 2 that we know of. What else are they being detained for beyond their convictions in Australia?

Not much point continuing on the rest since you’re not actually addressing my responses. Just keep reasserting your position that it’s based on them being refugees.

[Mickey_Raider]

One counter-example is all that’s needed to make your statement wrong (that they’ve all served their time and are entitled to a release). Seems like you’re acknowledging 2 that we know of. What else are they being detained for beyond their convictions in Australia?

Not much point continuing on the rest since you’re not actually addressing my responses. Just keep reasserting your position that it’s based on them being refugees.

You’re misunderstanding the legalities. Indeed you’ve even admitted you don’t care for the legalities.

But more relevantly, you can’t or won’t address the irrefutable fact that literally hundreds of Australian criminals are released into the community every week.

And we don’t have rolling 24 hour coverage about the latest batch of violent criminals released this week. Why?

That’s a rhetorical question btw. I am not asking for there to be rolling coverage. I am asking you to acknowledge the clear and obvious double standards. That was and is my original point.

Happy to leave it at that as per your suggestion though.

[gangrenous]

So we’ve established your claim that all have served their sentences even at the lowest bar of convicted crimes in Australia is incorrect? Good.

I said I didn’t particularly care for the legalities specifically regarding an obligation for my country to take in refugees with backgrounds of serious crime.

I HAVE addressed your point about the hundreds released. You disagreeing with that is completely different. I reject the equivalence you’ve drawn between the hundreds released this week and the segment of refugees. We are not releasing hundreds of murderers and people under suspicion of security agencies each week.

[Mickey_Raider]

So we’ve established your claim that all have served their sentences even at the lowest bar of convicted crimes in Australia is incorrect? Good.

What are you on about I have already tried to explain to you how the law works. Non-citizens will be transferred to immigration detention on expiration of their custodial sentence. Hence why I pointed out that it may appear like the two 2015 examples have time to run but what would have happened is they were paroled after 6 or 7 years and transferred onwards in preparation of being deported.

We are not releasing hundreds of murderers and people under suspicion of security agencies each week.

Hoo boy. Even your slam dunk guardian article which extrapolated the most "hardcore" amongst the impugned class of detainees didn't show that everyone was a murderer, far from it. You really are proving my point perfectly about the massive hyperventilation fed by a long term dehumanisation and demonization of refugees.

Mate it is probably best we leave it at that.

[gangrenous]

What are you on about I have already tried to explain to you how the law works. Non-citizens will be transferred to immigration detention on expiration of their custodial sentence. Hence why I pointed out that it may appear like the two 2015 examples have time to run but what would have happened is they were paroled after 6 or 7 years and transferred onwards in preparation of being deported.

You hypothesised that’s what happened. One of the other examples appears to indicate a transfer upon visa cancellation.

Hoo boy. Even your slam dunk guardian article which extrapolated the most "hardcore" amongst the impugned class of detainees didn't show that everyone was a murderer, far from it. You really are proving my point perfectly about the massive hyperventilation fed by a long term dehumanisation and demonization of refugees.

They don’t need to be. Because the reality is we aren’t releasing hundreds of murderers a week. If 5 of them are murderers that’s 5 too many and it’s not negligible compared to the number of murderers let out this week.

Your response is assuming that people are okay with people like that being released generally when they’re not refugees, and I’m telling you I don’t think people are.

Even then I also think it’s justifiable to have a difference between refugees and citizens in resettling/rehabilitation from serious crime. I also fully expect there to be higher likelihood of additional complexities in the refugee cases where there is awareness or strong suspicion of crimes that can’t be proven to court of law standards.

I don’t see that it’s possible to make a call on whether releasing is the right or wrong thing to do without the detail on the individual cases. I suspect that a blanket release is unlikely to have yielded a good and unconcerning outcome.

[Dr Zaius]

So Maine have apparently disqualified Trump.

Looks like it a decision made by the Secretary of State. Not a fan of this. It's one thing for a bench of judges to come to this decision, it's another when it's an opposing politician.

[dubby]

What was your expectation? That the government ignore the law and illegally det... ah nevermind

My expectation was you send these criminals back to wherever they came from.

I do not want them in my or your community.

[dubby]

So Maine have apparently disqualified Trump.

Looks like it a decision made by the Secretary of State. Not a fan of this. It's one thing for a bench of judges to come to this decision, it's another when it's an opposing politician.

And that's what she is.

These idiots over in the USA are so afraid of a Trump re-election they're pulling out desperate moves which will likely see him more popular than ever.

And it actually shows how reprehensible they are, adding scepticism to voter fraud vis a vis 2020 election

[greeneyed]

The laws of Maine require its Secretary of State to hold a public hearing in response to voter challenges to a candidate's qualifications for office. She was required to make a decision by a certain date under the law. She was simply following the process of her required by State laws. She didn’t wake up one morning and say, I’m taking Trump off the ballot. Under their process, it’s clear a court of law will ultimately decide.

“My obligation under Maine State law was to issue a decision very quickly, not permitted under Maine law to wait for the United States Supreme Court to intervene in this particular proceeding. I was required to issue that decision. And I could only look at the hearing, evidence, and facts that were presented during that hearing… I stayed the impact, or the effect, of my decision, pending [the statutory] opportunity to appeal in Superior Court, because I think it's really important, recognizing how fast the timeline is, but also recognizing the requirements that I have as Secretary of State to prepare a ballot, to wait and see what the court tells us to do.”

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-main ... a-bellows/

Given it’s quite clear there was an attempted insurrection, organised by Trump, what else was she supposed to do? It boggles my mind that Trump is even being permitted by the Republican Party to nominate. It says a lot about most of them.

[Dr Zaius]

Thanks GE, I wasn't aware of that process, it wasn't reported in the initial stories that I read. I've got no issue with the outcome, just had an issue with the process, but you've cleared that up now. Still, it's not a great look for the Democrats and will likely harden his supporters resolve.

I'm with you though. I can't believe that this guy is allowed to run for office after what he did. It's worth pointing out again that both in the Colorado case and now again in Maine, the process was initiated across partisan lines, involving some Republicans attempting to take back their party. There was some thought that if the Senate vote was anonymous, Trump would have been impeached the second time. However Republicans are afraid to stand up to him. For good reason, he is notoriously vindictive. He has openly stated that he will use the presidency to destroy those that have opposed him. Look at what happened to Liz Cheney.

[Finchy]

Wasn’t Sonny Bill ranting about how all of this was a lie yesterday? Horrific stuff

Horrifying accounts emerge of Hamas atrocities in Israel: https://www.news.com.au/world/middle-ea ... 2c1822b43e