By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Pemalite said:

Machiavellian said:

I am not sure you get it.  Trying to compare Australia to the US seems far fetched.  Your country does not even come close to the amount of traffic that goes through the US within one hour compared to one year in your country.  Saying you secured your boarder when you are in the middle of nowhere where you catch the occasional boat full of people seems unrealistic.  Just the port of entry alone between the 2 nations and scale is totally different.  Let not act as if securing Australia boarder is the same as securing any mainland country.

On the contrary. YOU are not getting it.
The differences between the USA and Australia is irrelevant.

Who was it that made the claim.  "Australia has solved illegal Immigration".  So basically you are throwing out context because it does not fit your world view.  You are simply ignoring the difference between the 2 nations because its more simple in your mind that securing the boarder of Australia is the same as the US.  Your answer is build a wall, which by the way we have plenty of walls as if that was the solution in the past and somehow doing the same thing is going to result in something different.  The fact that illegal immigrants come over the wall, under the wall, through the wall, from the sea, from the air, you name it suggest to me that your wall solution is a waste of time, resource and money. 

Machiavellian said:

You solving an issue that really not an issue because you are in the middle of the ocean is nothing to proclaim.  The volume just not there to make an apples to apples comparison.  Its as if you were a nation on the moon and saying we solved illegal immigration because you see a ship every 2 years.

People dying trying to illegally come here is a big fucking issue. We are talking thousands dead.

Again, you are missing the point of an "all hazards approach".

We stopped illegal immigration in our country. - The scales we are talking about are absolutely different, but again, are also absolutely irrelevant to the point at hand.

We went from 800~ boats a year down to 20~ boats a year due to change of border policy.

I probably do not need to mention that I am-in fact on the front lines of this issue in my nation due to my particular roles in deep-sea marine rescue, I have seen this first hand.

You have not stopped illegal immigration.  You only handled one specific situation which is by sea.  You have one solution to a problem that has multiple issues and then trying to proclaim you done something.  This is why you seem to not get it.  Your one solution does not equal the same situation in the US because there are multiple ways for illegal immigrants get into the country.  Your experience in this area is from a point of view of your job which has no correlation to a mainland issue.  Then you suggest that a wall will make a difference when the US already have walls.  What makes you think more walls in mountain, swamps and other locations unsuitable for such construction will change the outcome if the current walls are not doing the job.

Machiavellian said:

Well of course its better than the US when you have the population the size of one state in the middle of the ocean.  At the end of the day, if you have an issue does it really matter if you are better than your neighbor.  You still have an issue.  The way you made your previous statement you basically asserted that you solved drug issues but that doesn't seem to be the case.  

*Sigh* you really don't understand the mathematical point of per-capita statistics do you?
Overall population size is thus irrelevant, that's just an argument that someone enjoys using because they don't wish to extrapolate comparative statistics.

In the end...
We solved gun-related crime in this country.
We have reduced our drug-related crime in this country, with more work being done on this front.
We solved illegal immigration in this country.

But you know, apparently it's all irrelevant? Give me a break, the USA needs to start looking towards successful models and start scaling it up instead of incessant complaining in order to retain the status quo, whilst complaining about the status quo. It's toxic circular rhetoric.

So let me understand this correctly.  Are you saying that 28 million people on an isolated island statistically can be compared to a mainland country of 338 million people.  That somehow, the 2 nations have so much in common that statistically their issues can be compared the same.  So on a social, political ,economic comparison its all relative.  I do not know what mathematical model you are using but it must be very simplistic.

So let me ask this question, how did you solve gun related crime in your country? How would the US take your model and apply it.  I would love to see how that would work and would be all for it.  If its asking all the gun owners to give up their guns, then you have no clue about the US.

As for solving problems, if I threw up a stat with a US state that has comparative drug related crime to Australia with the same population size would that be apples to apples comparison??

You did not solve illegal immigration, you only reduced one specific issue which is by sea.  You still have a crap load of visa overstays just like the US which is still the majority of illegal immigration in the US.

If the US needs to ask Australia how to stop illegal immigration by sea, you will be the first on the list but if your solution is to build more walls then I think we can easily ignore that advice.  When you start to build walls around Australia, you let us know then we can see how well that goes for you.

I am absolutely thankful to be living in one of the greatest, freedom loving, equal, countries on Earth which seems to be able to competently solve more issues than the largest economy on earth. (Universal Healthcare, Gun Control, Border control, etc'.)

It wasn't that hard.

Know how we did it? We don't shut off "ideas" simply because they are right wing or left wing aka. Republican vs Democrat. - We weigh policy based on it's individual merits for the benefit of the entire nation.

You know a dictator can also solve more problems as well.  Not sure why you believe with the size of your population and government it would be harder to solve issues then for a country as large as the US with 2 polar political parties.  

It really does not matter how you did it.  Australia is not the US.  Your history is not the same as the US, your conditions are not the same, your culture is not the same.  Nothing about Australia is the same as the US and it never will be.  Your point of view and perspective is too narrow to give advice outside of your own country.  It would be great if the US took all the good ideals and left the rest but that's never going to happen because in a country of 338 million people, All from different backgrounds, relationships, countries and nationalities it takes decades to move the needle. As I stated before, when all the old heads die off is when the US moves forward.

While its great that your country is divers, it definitely does not show in your government.