Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 1:16 pm Post subject: Re:
Bite Me wrote:
So MM2, how many are you going to accommodate at your joint ?
I’d take none, even if it was possible for me to do so.
Just stating a fact. As signatories to the UN convention on refugees, people are allowed to claim asylum in Australia. If the claim is up held then they are genuine refugees, as is found in most cases.
I don’t like the way they get here, to me they are lucky enough to have the $$ to shop for the best county to end up in, where as many other genuine refugees will never have the where-with-all to be able to.
Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:37 pm Post subject: Re:
Bite Me wrote:
Stop bashing your head against the wall Bream.
May be the cause of your flawed thinking.
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. Get it - ILLEGAL.
Google it. ILLEGAL.
If I break the law, I suffer the consequences because its
I L L E G A L
It's not illegal to claim asylum.
It is illegal to overstay your visa, a much bigger problem than boat people.
So what you're trying to say is it's legal to to enter a country without a passport vis etc
Avoid going through customs where authorities can determine if you're an immediate risk
Have the threat of carrying desease prohibited items etc etc
Consort with criminals to ferry you here & all that is Legal
Dont think so _________________ **************************
Save The Fish, Eat a Pussy Cat
Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 2:38 am Post subject: Re:
we are not talking about people that are unscreened straght off the boats or planes or subs or hot air ballons we are talking about that that have been checked and cleared as ligitmate refugees
actually our immigration dept only approves some 40% of initial applications for asylum. its only after us good tax payers foot the bill for these illegals to pay for lawyers to challenge the result that close to 90% get through.
That sounds like it could be about right. Do you have any specific info relating to the legal argument that creates a successful appeal?
Firstly, thats the numbers quoted in the media from several different sources(as close to the numbers as i can remember - so give or take a few %). No, I don't know what legal argument they are using to reverse the initial decision but i'm pretty confident that a lot of lawyers are getting rich arguing these cases.
Going back to everyday australian view(i.e no legal bs) :
1. If these people are genuine refugees who get to indonesia with valid documents, why do they suddenly have NO documents when they get escorted to xmas island?
2. If these people are genuine regugees, why are the boats filled with mostly men and boys, surely the whole family was at risk, even more so when the men and boys have deserted? Refugee repatriation laws anyone?
I have no doubt some of these people are genuinely fleeing persecution but the evidence suggests the majority are simply moving here to take advantage of our awesome country..... need look no further than the europe experience to see the outcome of this
i believe any refugee who didn't get here via the official channels should be placed on a temprary protection visa(TPV) - i.e no ability to bring the rest of your family over. It worked once before and i reckon it will work again.
What's with the belief that a person with money can't be a refugee. Some refugee's are scientists or doctors in their home country, they are not necessarily just homeless people poor people.
They are fleeing war and death.
Whoever said ' we didn't start their war', your right, but neither did the refugees.
It never ceases to amaze me how second, third and fourth generation Australians can be soo anti immigration
I am the second generation of an Irish immigrant, I wouldn't be here without immigration.
Don't give me the 'yeah but he came here legally, blah blah blah crap,' my pop came here broke after the war, he had nothing, he went on to work in a factory the rest of his life. No different to immigrants these days. _________________ http://swandvsfguiding.com/index.html
What's with the belief that a person with money can't be a refugee.
That's the thing most do have money that's how they get passage in the 1st place the smugglers aren't charity workers
Rest of your arguement
Well kel haven't you learnt that you're not a very good argue'er actually you such @ it big time
You're confusing immigration with illigals there's a huge difference
Australia was built on immigrants bulk stayed & call oz home but a hell of alot only came here cause they were poor.
Came to work make a small fortune by their stands & return to their homelands to live the life of kings
There were 3 major designations in those days USA, Germany & Aust
Austraian policies are way to leniant & that's what shites me to no end
A migrant who came to oz generaly only stayed 5 years then returned to homeland by that time was entitled to an Aust pension these people are still living of Australian welfare
Same with all these refo's besides the fact they are costing aust tax payer millions & millions i'll bet my b*lls any moneys they might start earning if given work will be sent straight back os
It's become a joke the amount of $$'s leaving Aust _________________ **************************
Save The Fish, Eat a Pussy Cat
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum