Woomera

Remove this Banner Ad

Does his IQ level drop every minute?

thrawn you are a idiot and a absolote toss
Click to expand...

Why? Because I don't agree with you? Get a bloody life you moron.

you think your so good but you not, you know your wrong.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't have that attitude. You're saying this because you can't hack being wrong. Live and learn.

and bsa, i wouldnt be calling me a lizard you sheep.
Click to expand...

I'll let BSA handle this ;)

... Okay, I'm sick of this childish charade. I'll stop replying to you MrBoy, just because you can't seem to answer my questions, or debate this interesting issue in a proper manner. This is turning into an insult-fest, so I won't let you drag me down to your level.

As a wise BigFooty scribe once stated:

"Never argue with an idiot, because they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Great. A serious and urgent topic has been reduced to a slanging match.

I think it all comes down to the question of what kind of country we want to live in. If our excuse for treating refugees badly is "they'd do it to us if we were over there," then what we're saying is that we're happy to behave like a Middle Eastern country. We're happy to be no better than Iraq. And we're just as happy to persecute the victims as well as the cause of persecution. I for one don't want to see this country go down that path.

My response to those who say "they broke the law" over and over again, is that Jews broke the law escaping Germany in the 1930s. Laws were broken in the French Revolution, while democracy was being established.

And a distinction should be drawn between what is unlawful and what is immoral. If anyone can truthfully say that the asylum seekers' actions were immoral, I'd be very surprised. Just as surprised as I would be to find someone say the Government's actions are moral.

What I get from the links is that the Australian Government is continually rejigging the law to make asylum seekers retrospective criminals.

Currently, the Howard Government is pulling all the strings it can to shield advisers from the inquiry. You have to ask why if, as Howard claims, he has nothing to hide. This Government is free to smear refugees all it likes, offer no apology when its claims are shown to be false, construct a firewall around its lies and innuendo, coerce helpless Pacific nations into housing refugees, and then bend over to be sodomised by the US at any and every occasion. Classic bully behaviour, cowardly and brutal and extremely immature. We're like the senior boys' f** at some private school.
 
It's not an easy issue, but certainly insults and cheap shots don't do any good.
Arriving in Australia and saying "I am a refugee" doesn't automatically qualify someone to residence in Australia. If you were to do otherwise, there'd be no control at all and you may as well abolish the idea of needing passports or visas to enter the country. On the other hand, if a person arrives here who is genuinely fleeing an evil regime like Saddam Hussein or the Taliban, they need to be looked after.
If a person claims to be a refugee, their claims need to be checked. But the current process is too slow - it shouldn't take months or years. We need a system that processes claims a lot quicker than is currently the case.
While a person's claims are being processed, I don't see a viable alternative to detention. In the same way that people accused of criminal acts may be kept in remand until their case is heard, even though they are innocent until proven guilty, it has to happen in these cases. Otherwise, if their claims are rejected, it's difficult to deport them.
Of course when a claim is accepted; people should, and are, released from detention. But the length of time taken to determine the cases is far too long, which does lead to frustration. But that frustration doesn't justify the actions of some assylum seekers, which only hardens public opinion even further every time there's another incident.
 
I nearly keeled over then. An intelligent comment at last!

Good points, Bomber Spirit. The actions of the asylum seekers are only justified inasmuch as they have a fair idea of what this Government is trying to do. Ruddock makes no apology for what he describes as measures to deter further asylum claims here. In other words subjecting these refugees to unnecessary delays, hardships and deprivations as a message to others.

Or more probably a message to the Australian heartland. Look how we deal with unwanted scum interlopers - hope you all appreciate it. Plenty of votes in that.

Too often apologists for our policies want to paint the picture in black and white - either you don't want them here at all, or you want to let them all run loose over the country, unchecked. Ther'e's plenty of middle ground. They have to be processed, of course. But this processing should be as swift and humane as possible.
 
Bomber Spirit

Thanks for your comments.

Of course arriving in Australia and saying "I am a refugee" will not qualify you for Residency - I have never said that.

The point I am trying to make is that arriving in Australia and saying "I am a refugee' is not an illegal activity.

Nor is it 'immigration' within the meaning of the Migration Act (Cth) 1958, nor indeed the United Nations Convention on Refugees (1951)

So to call asylum seekers 'illegal immigrants' is wrong.

They have done nothing illegal, and they are not immigrants.

But thats not to say that these people should be granted residency.

Hope that clarified the point I'm trying to make.

cheers
 
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
Bomber Spirit

Thanks for your comments.

Of course arriving in Australia and saying "I am a refugee" will not qualify you for Residency - I have never said that.

The point I am trying to make is that arriving in Australia and saying "I am a refugee' is not an illegal activity.

Nor is it 'immigration' within the meaning of the Migration Act (Cth) 1958, nor indeed the United Nations Convention on Refugees (1951)

So to call asylum seekers 'illegal immigrants' is wrong.

They have done nothing illegal, and they are not immigrants.

But thats not to say that these people should be granted residency.

Hope that clarified the point I'm trying to make.

cheers
Click to expand...

but if the asylum seekers havent got a case then thats breaking the law!
 
Originally posted by Bloodstained Angel
__________________________________________________

"but if the asylum seekers havent got a case then thats breaking the law!"

___________________________________________________

You really have no idea at all do you ?

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

yes i do.

if you looked at the link and the heading up the top you would have realised that i was right.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

These protesters will only make things worse for the assylum seekers. Stirs them up and provokes them, and the penalties for anyone who escapes are fairly severe. And it means the security and all that would need to be even tighter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top