Rainier,
You are wrong old chap.

This author is simply using 'racism' as an attention gatherer and in doing so cites racism as a reason for opposition to the illegal boat arrivals, which is incorrect.

Almost everybody that opposes the entry of the illegals does so because they are con artists that are gate crashing Aus.

It is good to see your comments again but how about you give us your views on how to stop the boats from coming, if need be, and further your views on immigration policy.

But if you do that you could leave yourself open to accusations of racism by others. Better to sit quiet and just make the odd one liner.

Amicus... You said: "Just who signed up to these International Agreements, and what rights do they have to do so .. it is obvious that the majority of Australians - who everyone including the UN says is racist, did not agree to this."

From memory, a bunch of Australians fought and died in a rather large war, commonly referred to as World War II, so that agreements like this could come into fruition.

It is also mentioned in our National Anthem in the second verse, if you ever care to read the lyrics a proud Aussie like yourself belts out when remembering the fallen from aforementioned war:

"For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share"

So yes, you can blame real Australians who fought and died for this country, and the real Australians they left behind, for signing up to these agreements.

You are a child, basically asking: "why should we do it if they don't?"

There are so many insanely stupid, poorly informed and illogical arguments in this forum, for BOTH sides. So I decided to join up and play with you guys :)

Trash

TrashcanMan,
“There are so many insanely stupid, poorly informed and illogical arguments in this forum, for BOTH sides. So I decided to join up and play with you guys :)"

Indeed TCM, I can see that you are well practised at playing -- though I suspect most of your endeavours have been for self entertainment.

“It is also mentioned in our National Anthem in the second verse, if you ever care to read the lyrics a proud Aussie like yourself belts out when remembering the fallen from aforementioned war:

'For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share'"

Aye, but therein lies the rub TCM -- the invite says share our "plains" --- but the blighters all want to crowd into a metropolis.

The emigrés to OZ settle rarely on the plain.
Preferin' Sidney, Melborn …or Brisbain.

Horus,

Semantics my friend. But point taken. It also, however, elicits the question: Why the hell do we need to process them off-shore? We have boundless fricken plains (and people without jobs)! The reasons for doing it off-shore are purely political (i.e. assuring the rednecks that no filthy refugees set foot on our sacred turf) and have no real benefit compared to the massive increase in logistical costs.

tcm .. that's a long bow to draw, that Australians fought and died in WWII so that UN agreements could be agreed to by political appointees without the knowledge or agreement of the people sometime in the future .. and that they are not reviewed over time.

You appear to be serious about this, which just beggars belief that you actually think this is a reasonable argument.

On our national anthem, when did Australians agree that the words of a song should be interpreted as legal basis for unlawful immigration. Are there other words in the national anthem you'd like to become the basis for legislation?

"You are a child, basically asking: "why should we do it if they don't?" "

UN agreements are frequently referred to by immigration activists as a "sound reasoning" of why we should accept people who come uninvited to Australia - I have no problem taking people who have waited patiently for years in refugee camps in say Kosovo or some other hellhole coming to Australia as a UN sponsored immigrant. My problem is with the likes of yourself berating me and others that the same UN agreement means people can come here who are clearly con men and sneaks. That argument makes me want to review and even dispense with UN agreements, and have our own agreements, that can change to reflect what is reasonable at different times.

You're trying to trivialize arguments into little bite sized phrases to sum up an opponent's argument. I don't know where you've "played" before but this isn't a great place for trolls.

Don't call people names here, you won't last long .. so don't call me a child, I don't like it OK? I'm probably older than you and certainly more mature. When you refer to soldiers dying, be careful not to trivialize their lives by referring to them the way you do.

Are you a soldier, have you ever been one?

You call yourself Trash .. from some sort of bravado I assume, it does reflect your contribution very well.

I think we'll leave the name calling at one all now, thanks guys. I did hesitate over the allegation of childishness, but it just escaped. Won't next time. And if you're not aware TCM, I'm the moderator.