An apology to asylum seekers
Aug 2nd 2014, 2:17 am
#421
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 6,781
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
India obviously couldn't be bribed. Sadly for Nauru, a poor decrepit country these days, wasn't in the same position to decline.
Aug 2nd 2014, 2:19 am
#422
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 6,781
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
Only because Sri Lanka wanted nothing to do with the issue once out of the bag. India played hard ball. Still there are impoverished states Australia can bully and bribe to do their dirty work.
Aug 2nd 2014, 2:22 am
#423
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 6,781
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
Your rellies in RSA in need of asylum then? Plenty rolling up without the need of boats as economic and disgruntled migrants.
Aug 2nd 2014, 2:28 am
#424
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 6,781
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
I may be not getting what your on about, but the way I see it, the current objective is pretty simple. Lets halt or slow down the practice of people smuggling in rickety boats that ultimately lead to lots of death at sea. It's working ..... numbers have slowed .... and as a result less deaths.
What does make me laugh is that people will always claim this as an anti immigration, racist, policy. Really ..... Don't you think you may be jumping a little ahead here? Don't you think you are being a little paranoid here? Don't you think you may just be looking at any opportunity to jump on the liberal govt here? Yes to all.
What does make me laugh is that people will always claim this as an anti immigration, racist, policy. Really ..... Don't you think you may be jumping a little ahead here? Don't you think you are being a little paranoid here? Don't you think you may just be looking at any opportunity to jump on the liberal govt here? Yes to all.
Aug 2nd 2014, 2:30 am
#425
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 6,781
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
Or come by cruise liner and enjoy a few ports of call on the way. There is a reason why many have no passports.
Aug 2nd 2014, 6:55 pm
#428
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2008
Location: Perth
Posts: 6,781
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
Crime has just become more democratic in recent times impacting on all equally. Although of course it remains the non whites been slaughtered in greatest numbers. A case for those perhaps?
Aug 2nd 2014, 9:42 pm
#430
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 14,040
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
Can't think of too many. They are still privileged compared to other races or those that were in position prior to majority rule are.
Crime has just become more democratic in recent times impacting on all equally. Although of course it remains the non whites been slaughtered in greatest numbers. A case for those perhaps?
Crime has just become more democratic in recent times impacting on all equally. Although of course it remains the non whites been slaughtered in greatest numbers. A case for those perhaps?
Aug 2nd 2014, 11:19 pm
#431
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 9,397
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
Me: >>You really don't understand what I'm getting at, do you?<<
knockoff nige >>Do you?<<
I keep coming back to the question I asked IIRC at the end of April, and all I get is refusal to give a straight answer (which is, to be honest, just what I was expecting.)
Let me put it in another way, in the form of sequential questions:
(1) Do you think any country (including Australia) has the capacity, let alone the obligation, to accept an unlimited number of asylum claimants? (Y/N) If Yes, go to the end.
(2) If the answer to 1 is No, then what do you think is a reasonable number to accept? (20,000? 00,000? 1m?, 10m? - or choose another number)
(3) Grabbing just a few countries out of thin air which might reasonably be said to have a human rights problem, with their approximate populations:
Nigeria 174m
Libya 6m
Egypt 82m
Syria 22m
Iraq 34m
Iran 77m
Pakistan 183m
Afghanistan 31m
Not even counting such places as China, Burma, Sudan etc, the total of those I've mentioned is 609m.
Say 10% of those claim asylum in other countries, that's 60 million people.
(4) If your answer to 2 is fewer than that 60m (which in any case is three times Australia's present population), and given the reasonable assumption that a very large proportion of those involved would prefer to settle in a first world country which allows them easy entry, just what do you think the government should do when your limit is reached? Because it *would* be reached, at some point. And the more that had already been allowed in, the larger the smuggling industry would have become.
So, once again: do you have any answer to the original, three month old, question? Because the situation now is actually exactly the same as what I have stated above - only the numbers are different.
This has nothing to do with racism, compassion, hatred etc etc: it's purely a matter of what response any government can have to what is rapidly becoming a rock/hard place dilemma.
knockoff nige >>Do you?<<
I keep coming back to the question I asked IIRC at the end of April, and all I get is refusal to give a straight answer (which is, to be honest, just what I was expecting.)
Let me put it in another way, in the form of sequential questions:
(1) Do you think any country (including Australia) has the capacity, let alone the obligation, to accept an unlimited number of asylum claimants? (Y/N) If Yes, go to the end.
(2) If the answer to 1 is No, then what do you think is a reasonable number to accept? (20,000? 00,000? 1m?, 10m? - or choose another number)
(3) Grabbing just a few countries out of thin air which might reasonably be said to have a human rights problem, with their approximate populations:
Nigeria 174m
Libya 6m
Egypt 82m
Syria 22m
Iraq 34m
Iran 77m
Pakistan 183m
Afghanistan 31m
Not even counting such places as China, Burma, Sudan etc, the total of those I've mentioned is 609m.
Say 10% of those claim asylum in other countries, that's 60 million people.
(4) If your answer to 2 is fewer than that 60m (which in any case is three times Australia's present population), and given the reasonable assumption that a very large proportion of those involved would prefer to settle in a first world country which allows them easy entry, just what do you think the government should do when your limit is reached? Because it *would* be reached, at some point. And the more that had already been allowed in, the larger the smuggling industry would have become.
So, once again: do you have any answer to the original, three month old, question? Because the situation now is actually exactly the same as what I have stated above - only the numbers are different.
This has nothing to do with racism, compassion, hatred etc etc: it's purely a matter of what response any government can have to what is rapidly becoming a rock/hard place dilemma.
Aug 3rd 2014, 12:40 am
#432
Banned
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 22,348
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
Me: >>You really don't understand what I'm getting at, do you?<<
knockoff nige >>Do you?<<
I keep coming back to the question I asked IIRC at the end of April, and all I get is refusal to give a straight answer (which is, to be honest, just what I was expecting.)
Let me put it in another way, in the form of sequential questions:
(1) Do you think any country (including Australia) has the capacity, let alone the obligation, to accept an unlimited number of asylum claimants? (Y/N) If Yes, go to the end.
(2) If the answer to 1 is No, then what do you think is a reasonable number to accept? (20,000? 00,000? 1m?, 10m? - or choose another number)
(3) Grabbing just a few countries out of thin air which might reasonably be said to have a human rights problem, with their approximate populations:
Nigeria 174m
Libya 6m
Egypt 82m
Syria 22m
Iraq 34m
Iran 77m
Pakistan 183m
Afghanistan 31m
Not even counting such places as China, Burma, Sudan etc, the total of those I've mentioned is 609m.
Say 10% of those claim asylum in other countries, that's 60 million people.
(4) If your answer to 2 is fewer than that 60m (which in any case is three times Australia's present population), and given the reasonable assumption that a very large proportion of those involved would prefer to settle in a first world country which allows them easy entry, just what do you think the government should do when your limit is reached? Because it *would* be reached, at some point. And the more that had already been allowed in, the larger the smuggling industry would have become.
So, once again: do you have any answer to the original, three month old, question? Because the situation now is actually exactly the same as what I have stated above - only the numbers are different.
This has nothing to do with racism, compassion, hatred etc etc: it's purely a matter of what response any government can have to what is rapidly becoming a rock/hard place dilemma.
knockoff nige >>Do you?<<
I keep coming back to the question I asked IIRC at the end of April, and all I get is refusal to give a straight answer (which is, to be honest, just what I was expecting.)
Let me put it in another way, in the form of sequential questions:
(1) Do you think any country (including Australia) has the capacity, let alone the obligation, to accept an unlimited number of asylum claimants? (Y/N) If Yes, go to the end.
(2) If the answer to 1 is No, then what do you think is a reasonable number to accept? (20,000? 00,000? 1m?, 10m? - or choose another number)
(3) Grabbing just a few countries out of thin air which might reasonably be said to have a human rights problem, with their approximate populations:
Nigeria 174m
Libya 6m
Egypt 82m
Syria 22m
Iraq 34m
Iran 77m
Pakistan 183m
Afghanistan 31m
Not even counting such places as China, Burma, Sudan etc, the total of those I've mentioned is 609m.
Say 10% of those claim asylum in other countries, that's 60 million people.
(4) If your answer to 2 is fewer than that 60m (which in any case is three times Australia's present population), and given the reasonable assumption that a very large proportion of those involved would prefer to settle in a first world country which allows them easy entry, just what do you think the government should do when your limit is reached? Because it *would* be reached, at some point. And the more that had already been allowed in, the larger the smuggling industry would have become.
So, once again: do you have any answer to the original, three month old, question? Because the situation now is actually exactly the same as what I have stated above - only the numbers are different.
This has nothing to do with racism, compassion, hatred etc etc: it's purely a matter of what response any government can have to what is rapidly becoming a rock/hard place dilemma.
How strange, I began to compose a similar post earlier, and then abandoned it because I thought what's the point, most people can see the truth just the same as I can - some are just hard-wired to want to flood the western world with asylum seekers and economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers regardless of the consequences.
Aug 3rd 2014, 12:47 am
#433
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
How strange, I began to compose a similar post earlier, and then abandoned it because I thought what's the point, most people can see the truth just the same as I can - some are just hard-wired to want to flood the western world with asylum seekers and economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers regardless of the consequences.
Morrison is a bit of an arrogant prick, but on this issue he is dead right
Great stuff
Aug 3rd 2014, 12:54 am
#434
Proudly Deplorable
Joined: May 2003
Location: Alloha snack bar
Posts: 24,246
Re: An apology to asylum seekers
Me: >>You really don't understand what I'm getting at, do you?<<
knockoff nige >>Do you?<<
I keep coming back to the question I asked IIRC at the end of April, and all I get is refusal to give a straight answer (which is, to be honest, just what I was expecting.)
Let me put it in another way, in the form of sequential questions:
(1) Do you think any country (including Australia) has the capacity, let alone the obligation, to accept an unlimited number of asylum claimants? (Y/N) If Yes, go to the end.
(2) If the answer to 1 is No, then what do you think is a reasonable number to accept? (20,000? 00,000? 1m?, 10m? - or choose another number)
(3) Grabbing just a few countries out of thin air which might reasonably be said to have a human rights problem, with their approximate populations:
Nigeria 174m
Libya 6m
Egypt 82m
Syria 22m
Iraq 34m
Iran 77m
Pakistan 183m
Afghanistan 31m
Not even counting such places as China, Burma, Sudan etc, the total of those I've mentioned is 609m.
Say 10% of those claim asylum in other countries, that's 60 million people.
(4) If your answer to 2 is fewer than that 60m (which in any case is three times Australia's present population), and given the reasonable assumption that a very large proportion of those involved would prefer to settle in a first world country which allows them easy entry, just what do you think the government should do when your limit is reached? Because it *would* be reached, at some point. And the more that had already been allowed in, the larger the smuggling industry would have become.
So, once again: do you have any answer to the original, three month old, question? Because the situation now is actually exactly the same as what I have stated above - only the numbers are different.
This has nothing to do with racism, compassion, hatred etc etc: it's purely a matter of what response any government can have to what is rapidly becoming a rock/hard place dilemma.
knockoff nige >>Do you?<<
I keep coming back to the question I asked IIRC at the end of April, and all I get is refusal to give a straight answer (which is, to be honest, just what I was expecting.)
Let me put it in another way, in the form of sequential questions:
(1) Do you think any country (including Australia) has the capacity, let alone the obligation, to accept an unlimited number of asylum claimants? (Y/N) If Yes, go to the end.
(2) If the answer to 1 is No, then what do you think is a reasonable number to accept? (20,000? 00,000? 1m?, 10m? - or choose another number)
(3) Grabbing just a few countries out of thin air which might reasonably be said to have a human rights problem, with their approximate populations:
Nigeria 174m
Libya 6m
Egypt 82m
Syria 22m
Iraq 34m
Iran 77m
Pakistan 183m
Afghanistan 31m
Not even counting such places as China, Burma, Sudan etc, the total of those I've mentioned is 609m.
Say 10% of those claim asylum in other countries, that's 60 million people.
(4) If your answer to 2 is fewer than that 60m (which in any case is three times Australia's present population), and given the reasonable assumption that a very large proportion of those involved would prefer to settle in a first world country which allows them easy entry, just what do you think the government should do when your limit is reached? Because it *would* be reached, at some point. And the more that had already been allowed in, the larger the smuggling industry would have become.
So, once again: do you have any answer to the original, three month old, question? Because the situation now is actually exactly the same as what I have stated above - only the numbers are different.
This has nothing to do with racism, compassion, hatred etc etc: it's purely a matter of what response any government can have to what is rapidly becoming a rock/hard place dilemma.
