A policy Blair would have been proud of..
Jun 26th 2008, 1:47 am
#16
A lion in your lap
Joined: Jul 2003
Location: Sparta NJ
Posts: 7,605
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
The US has more than three times as many residents born outside the country (31 million) as the next biggest importer of migrants, Germany, which has 8 million. France and Canada have 5.6 million and 5.4 million respectively. The UK has an estimated 4.5 million people who live here but were born abroad.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/public/fea...260718,00.html
Jun 26th 2008, 1:49 am
#17
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 113
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
Yeah, like opposing the war on Iraq and withdrawing our troops. Just like Blair!
Oh wait... that's not like Blair at all.
No, it won't. Read the proposal closely. They'll have less time to claim asylum, they'll be kicked out faster if their claims aren't successful, and only a tiny percentage of them will be eligible to claim the dole.
This proposal would not accommodate the floods of boat people.
Oh wait... that's not like Blair at all.
No, it won't. Read the proposal closely. They'll have less time to claim asylum, they'll be kicked out faster if their claims aren't successful, and only a tiny percentage of them will be eligible to claim the dole.
This proposal would not accommodate the floods of boat people.
You would have got a kick out of turning that ship full of Jewish refugees back to Germany, a kick out of whipping a slave, a kick out of watching Christians fed to lions.
Jun 26th 2008, 1:58 am
#18
Just Joined
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
Nope, we do. The Sun said so. Thats why Britain is a refugee/immigrant/asylum seeker magnet! Didn't you know?
The myth: Britain is a refugee magnet
The truth: According to estimates by the United Nations, the UK only hosts 3% of the global refugee population. By the end of 2005 the UK ranked 7th in the world in terms of the numbers of refugees it hosts. The majority of people seeking asylum end up in the country next to their own: for example, Pakistan host the highest number of refugees and asylum seekers (1,085,000), as it borders troubled countries such as Afghanistan or Iran. Over the last 3 years, France has had the highest number of asylum applications in Europe.
http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/adv...ylum-myths.htm
The myth: Britain is a refugee magnet
The truth: According to estimates by the United Nations, the UK only hosts 3% of the global refugee population. By the end of 2005 the UK ranked 7th in the world in terms of the numbers of refugees it hosts. The majority of people seeking asylum end up in the country next to their own: for example, Pakistan host the highest number of refugees and asylum seekers (1,085,000), as it borders troubled countries such as Afghanistan or Iran. Over the last 3 years, France has had the highest number of asylum applications in Europe.
http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/adv...ylum-myths.htm
Last edited by cazzamia; Jun 26th 2008 at 2:13 am.
Jun 26th 2008, 2:13 am
#19
BE Enthusiast
Joined: Feb 2008
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 435
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
Seems that the Murdoch Racial Hatred Vehicle has done it's job.............
Jun 26th 2008, 2:33 am
#20
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 113
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
Dunroaming.....don't complain when you get mugged by an E bridging visa holder-who needed cash for a toothache treatment!
It gets better the whole thing incentivates criminal behavior-after all the bigger the crime the longer the jail sentence...in Oz (taxpayer funded)-often better than returning-you might get to stay through a few elections and a change in political climate and end up staying for good.
And if that isn't dumb enough it gets dumber-by all accounts Australia needs workers-why not plug into a resource right in your backyard.
In other word's the proposed law makes sense.
Personally I believe that 'illegals' should not just be able to work but should be able to earn the right to stay if their employer sponsors them even if they lose their claim.
The reality is good people slip through the cracks of bureaucracy and ten points must be given to those that chance the illegal route for sheer guts.
Last edited by hippyboy1; Jun 26th 2008 at 2:42 am.
Jun 26th 2008, 2:39 am
#21
Just Joined
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 20
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
Its even stupider than racial hatred-if we allow people to stay and don't allow them to work or claim welfare we are essentially sanctioning a life of crime for them.
Exactly.
Dunroaming.....don't complain when you get mugged by an E bridging visa holder-who needed cash for a toothache treatment!
Hahahaha.....
.
Exactly.
Dunroaming.....don't complain when you get mugged by an E bridging visa holder-who needed cash for a toothache treatment!
Hahahaha..... .
Jun 26th 2008, 3:19 am
#22
Oiiii.. You slaggg!
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Brisbaneshire
Posts: 5,209
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
Its even stupider than racial hatred-if we allow people to stay and don't allow them to work or claim welfare we are essentially sanctioning a life of crime for them.
Dunroaming.....don't complain when you get mugged by an E bridging visa holder-who needed cash for a toothache treatment!
It gets better the whole thing incentivates criminal behavior-after all the bigger the crime the longer the jail sentence...in Oz (taxpayer funded)-often better than returning-you might get to stay through a few elections and a change in political climate and end up staying for good.
And if that isn't dumb enough it gets dumber-by all accounts Australia needs workers-why not plug into a resource right in your backyard.
In other word's the proposed law makes sense.
Personally I believe that 'illegals' should not just be able to work but should be able to earn the right to stay if their employer sponsors them even if they lose their claim.
The reality is good people slip through the cracks of bureaucracy and ten points must be given to those that chance the illegal route for sheer guts.
Dunroaming.....don't complain when you get mugged by an E bridging visa holder-who needed cash for a toothache treatment!
It gets better the whole thing incentivates criminal behavior-after all the bigger the crime the longer the jail sentence...in Oz (taxpayer funded)-often better than returning-you might get to stay through a few elections and a change in political climate and end up staying for good.
And if that isn't dumb enough it gets dumber-by all accounts Australia needs workers-why not plug into a resource right in your backyard.
In other word's the proposed law makes sense.
Personally I believe that 'illegals' should not just be able to work but should be able to earn the right to stay if their employer sponsors them even if they lose their claim.
The reality is good people slip through the cracks of bureaucracy and ten points must be given to those that chance the illegal route for sheer guts.
Anyway, I agree (in principle) with your rationale about allowing someone to stay and not providing them with a means to stay but it could be argued that someone on a WHV should leave when they are legally obliged to? Any problems (for most people on WHV's I am sure) that arise from their overstaying is simply an effect relative to the cause they created. I'm sure this is a subjective matter so that's my two-cents worth.
BUT the real point of my original post (which I thought was quite clear) was to bring to light the dichotomy that would prevail if legal residents were disallowed access to the welfare system whilst (technically speaking) illegal immigrants were allowed access to the same welfare system. At the very least this is fundamentally wrong and unjust.
I wonder how much pleading I would need to do (before being eligible - though we become eligible in two weeks) if I had lost my job and had no means to feed my family and keep a roof over their head. The answer is no-end of pleading because I signed away (gladly) the right of access to the welfare system until such time that I had been here long enough to claim. Permanent residents are not exempt from falling on hard-times after arriving here but it seems that you are only prepared to argue the cause of the illegal over-stayer. That seems quite unbalanced to me.
Jun 26th 2008, 3:58 am
#23
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 113
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
"Incentivates"...nice word....I'll have to make sure I rememberise that one...
Anyway, I agree (in principle) with your rationale about allowing someone to stay and not providing them with a means to stay but it could be argued that someone on a WHV should leave when they are legally obliged to? Any problems (for most people on WHV's I am sure) that arise from their overstaying is simply an effect relative to the cause they created. I'm sure this is a subjective matter so that's my two-cents worth.
BUT the real point of my original post (which I thought was quite clear) was to bring to light the dichotomy that would prevail if legal residents were disallowed access to the welfare system whilst (technically speaking) illegal immigrants were allowed access to the same welfare system. At the very least this is fundamentally wrong and unjust.
I wonder how much pleading I would need to do (before being eligible - though we become eligible in two weeks) if I had lost my job and had no means to feed my family and keep a roof over their head. The answer is no-end of pleading because I signed away (gladly) the right of access to the welfare system until such time that I had been here long enough to claim. Permanent residents are not exempt from falling on hard-times after arriving here but it seems that you are only prepared to argue the cause of the illegal over-stayer. That seems quite unbalanced to me.
Anyway, I agree (in principle) with your rationale about allowing someone to stay and not providing them with a means to stay but it could be argued that someone on a WHV should leave when they are legally obliged to? Any problems (for most people on WHV's I am sure) that arise from their overstaying is simply an effect relative to the cause they created. I'm sure this is a subjective matter so that's my two-cents worth.
BUT the real point of my original post (which I thought was quite clear) was to bring to light the dichotomy that would prevail if legal residents were disallowed access to the welfare system whilst (technically speaking) illegal immigrants were allowed access to the same welfare system. At the very least this is fundamentally wrong and unjust.
I wonder how much pleading I would need to do (before being eligible - though we become eligible in two weeks) if I had lost my job and had no means to feed my family and keep a roof over their head. The answer is no-end of pleading because I signed away (gladly) the right of access to the welfare system until such time that I had been here long enough to claim. Permanent residents are not exempt from falling on hard-times after arriving here but it seems that you are only prepared to argue the cause of the illegal over-stayer. That seems quite unbalanced to me.
I think that's fair-why should they suffer on account of a waiver you signed.
I have friend who is Australian and who's mother is English (her father is also of Endlish ancestry), however she was born in 1958 at a time when the UK only recognised paternal descent for children-she cannot get a UK passport or right of Abode.
I have another freind who's mother's mother is Hungarian, she lives in London on a Hungarian passport.
My friend with the mother from the UK would be hauled out at heathrow if she overstayed-the quarter Hungarian welcomed with open arms.
law often makes little sense.
Jun 26th 2008, 4:02 am
#24
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 113
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
Thats the point, you signed a waver they did'nt-no one forced you to sign it.
I think that's fair-why should they suffer on account of a waiver you signed.
I have friend who is Australian and who's mother is English (her father is also of Endlish ancestry), however she was born in 1958 at a time when the UK only recognised paternal descent for children-she cannot get a UK passport or right of Abode.
I have another freind who's mother's mother is Hungarian, she lives in London on a Hungarian passport.
My friend with the mother from the UK would be hauled out at heathrow if she overstayed-the quarter Hungarian welcomed with open arms.
law often makes little sense.
I think that's fair-why should they suffer on account of a waiver you signed.
I have friend who is Australian and who's mother is English (her father is also of Endlish ancestry), however she was born in 1958 at a time when the UK only recognised paternal descent for children-she cannot get a UK passport or right of Abode.
I have another freind who's mother's mother is Hungarian, she lives in London on a Hungarian passport.
My friend with the mother from the UK would be hauled out at heathrow if she overstayed-the quarter Hungarian welcomed with open arms.
law often makes little sense.
Jun 26th 2008, 4:58 am
#25
Account Closed
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 9,316
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
It almost sounds like your salivating as you say 'kicked out", what happened to cause you to get a kick out watching very unfortunate people who probably put everything on the line and wasted years get kicked out-or are you simply sadistic.
You would have got a kick out of turning that ship full of Jewish refugees back to Germany, a kick out of whipping a slave, a kick out of watching Christians fed to lions.
You would have got a kick out of turning that ship full of Jewish refugees back to Germany, a kick out of whipping a slave, a kick out of watching Christians fed to lions.
Jun 26th 2008, 5:10 am
#26
Oiiii.. You slaggg!
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Brisbaneshire
Posts: 5,209
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
Thats the point, you signed a waver they did'nt-no one forced you to sign it.
I think that's fair-why should they suffer on account of a waiver you signed.
I have friend who is Australian and who's mother is English (her father is also of Endlish ancestry), however she was born in 1958 at a time when the UK only recognised paternal descent for children-she cannot get a UK passport or right of Abode.
I have another freind who's mother's mother is Hungarian, she lives in London on a Hungarian passport.
My friend with the mother from the UK would be hauled out at heathrow if she overstayed-the quarter Hungarian welcomed with open arms.
law often makes little sense.
I think that's fair-why should they suffer on account of a waiver you signed.
I have friend who is Australian and who's mother is English (her father is also of Endlish ancestry), however she was born in 1958 at a time when the UK only recognised paternal descent for children-she cannot get a UK passport or right of Abode.
I have another freind who's mother's mother is Hungarian, she lives in London on a Hungarian passport.
My friend with the mother from the UK would be hauled out at heathrow if she overstayed-the quarter Hungarian welcomed with open arms.
law often makes little sense.
Jun 26th 2008, 5:17 am
#27
Forum Regular
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 113
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
Ironically, you unknowingly reinforced my original viewpoint which was no-one forced the people on the WHV's to come to Australia either and if they overstay their welcome they should go home rather than stay in a country that they have no legal (and this is the important bit in my opinion) right of abode. These are not political asylum seekers.
Jun 26th 2008, 5:20 am
#28
Oiiii.. You slaggg!
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Brisbaneshire
Posts: 5,209
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
A thousand "Meh"s to you and your ilk.....
Jun 26th 2008, 5:33 am
#30
Oiiii.. You slaggg!
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2004
Location: Brisbaneshire
Posts: 5,209
Re: A policy Blair would have been proud of..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron
A thousand and one "Meh"s.....