this might at first raise anger
but then..its time we knew..that terrot..
is just error..[with a capiTal..T.

noting capital/terror..
go hand in hand../with gun in hand

crime pays..
hence bigger crime pay off..is bigger
how big..watch..learn..but dont get angry..get even

learn more
teaching dissipate the anger

its an info war
http://www.repubblica.it/cultura/2013/09/11/news/the_pope_s_letter-66336961/

our weapon..of choice..is words
freewill..free voice
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5995&page=0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr6T-4Voe0g

Thanks guys.

There’s also another dimension that all the mainstream parties are missing.

The definition of “refugee” is so wide, and this world is so bad, that there are many more people in the world who qualify as refugees every year, than there are people in Australia.

There are about 45 million refugees in the world, and most of them are living in desperate circumstances. Saw a video once on a massive refugee camp in Kenya. A complete hell-hole. At night the UN staff barricade themselves into a fort with all the armed guards, and the rest of the place is given over to rape, looting and murder.

I’ve heard people say the boat people coming to Australia aren’t refugees - they’re wearing fashionable clothes and they obviously work out in the gym. But being a refugee doesn’t mean you’re poor or sick, it means you’re at risk of persecution. Middle-class Iranians at risk of being hanged for converting to Christianity or being homosexual are just as much refugees as poor Africans.

Both Labor and Liberal governments spend approximately a zillion dollars per onshore refugee, and approximately zip dollars per offshore refugee. This difference is because of the Refugees Convention.

The Convention creates two different legal classes of refugees. A State, by signing the Convention, doesn’t agree to take all the refugees in the world. They only agree not to return the refugees who are in the State’s territory. (Australia also grants rights of residence, freedom of movement, employment, education, etc. – PNG doesn’t.)

So if you’re applying onshore, you only have to prove that you satisfy the definition of refugee, basically (and security clearance).

But if you’re applying offshore, you have to prove that you satisfy the definition of refugee, and then you go into a huge lottery for one of the few places in the offshore refugee component of the general immigration program. I know an Afghan who applied offshore FIFTEEN TIMES for a refugee visa, was rejected the first fourteen times, and got it on the fifteenth. Many meritorious cases never get it and languish in …

… the camps forever.

This means the Convention confers huge unequal advantages on people applying onshore. That’s the underlying *legal* reason why asylum-seekers come by boat.

Thus it’s completely disingenuous of the major parties to blame “people smugglers”. The problem isn’t being caused by irregular transport agents contracted to bring people from hell to Australia. It’s being caused by the hypocrisy of the major parties, in signing on to the Convention, and then doing everything they possibly can to try to squirm out of it.

Blaming “people smugglers” is like calling the people who aided Anne Frank “people smugglers”. It’s like calling Schindler, the guy who illegally delivered Jews from Nazi persecution, a “people smuggler”. Politicians!

(It’s true many of these agents have been fraudulent but that’s not in the nature of the business of transporting people, it’s because governments deny protection or justice to both parties to the contract – because they’re trying to rely on, and governments are trying to evade the clear requirements of their own undertaken obligations.)

Clive Palmer said one of the most sensible things I’ve heard on the entire topic. These people are paying $15,000 for a boat trip from Indonesia to Australia. The market price for an airfare is $800. Why not let them fly in at their own expense on a return ticket? Hear and determine their claims in appropriate facilities at the airport. If they’re not refugees, send them back at their own expense. If they are, grant them refugee status in accordance with Australia’s obligations under international law.

That seems to me far more humane, sensible and economic, but the only response from the Greens is to hate and villify Palmer because mining wounds the Earth!)

The question which needs to be answered is: why be on the Convention at all? Withdrawing does *not* mean the government doesn’t take in refugees. It means that the government could determine the numbers and conditions of onshore refugees, just as it does for offshore refugees and all other categories of non-refugee migrants.

There is no similarity between what is happening now and the regional solution we entered into to resettle 100,000 Vietnamese refugees.
Further, the criminal element, namely pirates, were preying on fleeing refugees, rather than trying to smuggle them in here for exorbitant fees!
The regional solution we entered into, when Malcolm Frazier was our PM, reduced the risk to refugees, by making Hong Kong, the first port of call for intending refugees, reducing the time, length and danger of the journey.
Moreover, most of those seeking shelter were our former south Vietnamese allies, and at very real risk of reprisals from Ho Chi Min's Tigers?
Typically, the tail wagging the dog, antiwar Greens, set themselves up, with their moral superiority, to speak for the majority, without ever once seeking the views of that majority.
They were, I believe, the tree hugging rent-a-crowd group and craven coward draft dodgers, who were anti war, and spat on returning veterans, labeling them baby killers and the like!
When in fact, the rules of engagement only allowed our soldiers to discharge their weapons, when fired on! And sometimes, not even then! (Friendly fire.)
I have no problem inviting more GENUINE refugees to settle here.
There are millions in camps around the world, and some have been waiting for decades!
However, if someone knocks on my door seeking entry, they need my invitation before entering!
I don't take kindly to anyone, even a friend, simply walking in without waiting to be invited!
When we resettled all those Vietnamese, they were invited and at GENUINE risk!
Yes by all means lets honor our obligations to asylum seekers.
No ifs, buts or maybes, as long as the recipients of our generosity understand, that generosity doesn't automatically include resettlement in Australia or Australian citizenship!
Rhrosty.

i note..that the two..
big informative posters..to this thread
have each posted twice..sadly..they had to post 4 posts for just two replies

i know we would gladly..give up a post
we could post..to either of the other..to post more

anyhow..jkj..great..info..[the people/state thing]..etc
i think it was you that raised the wage/tax issue..and im sure you know

but wage is not income*
thus to tax wage..*AS IF it were TRUE in-come..
is a fraud..

upon the people by..the state

look-up the meaning of income*..
[that profit earned..*without*..a value adding componant..such as labour

wage=wage..[value adding]
income=things like profit/interest/capital gain/shares art fines fees levies..etc

corporations..for egsample..CAN ONLY produce income*
[they arnt a living entity]..but by a legal paper fiction..[under the act of incorperalisation..[as if living personhood[..thus they are born as entity/egzisting..*only on paper

ie..a person..[under the act]
/under the act..of their incorp-oration..
[effectively a trust]..limited/liability..because its not living..[an entity..a personhood fiction]

they*..have subverted the lawful meaning of ;person;
then put up laws..that apply *ONLY to state created persons

[corporate persons]..that first subverted the rights..[of the living]
while a dead capitalist/socialist..bails out the dead..[person/corporate fictions

if only people knew
we got income tax
not wage tax

Thank you Daemon Singer, for answering for me the question as to why why some people in Australia insist upon Australia accepting as a "refugee" every person who hops on a boat in Indonesia and manages to put his big toe on Australian soil. It is our punishment for being an ally of the USA and getting involved in the wars of the USA, isn't it?

Daemon asks "What makes an Australian?" And then he makes it pretty clear that he regards "first people" as the real Australians and the white "boat people" as "usurpers". " Can you see the racism here? Daemon accords being an "Australian" with race, but he would hop around in red faced apoplexy if I did the same thing and bestowed an "Australian" as a white North European. Daemon is just as big a racist as I am. Daemon's racism is particularly virulent towards one particular white demographic whom he stereotypes as "pale skinned, round eyed, fourth generation welfare recipients in Western Sydney."

If anybody on OLO had referred to Asians as "slant eyed" and prejudged them with a long list of negative stereotypes, they would almost certainly have been banished from OLO for racism. But there seems to be a curious double standard which applies to whites and minorities in the western world. Racism towards minorities is totally unacceptable, but self evident and virulent racism towards white people gets free a pass. No one in the Human Rights organisations in Australia is going to prosecute Daemon under section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act because the employees of those organisations would probably agree with Daemon's opinion of white people.

I used to be a bit of a trendy lefty myself in my younger days, but unlike Daemon I soon grew out of it. I opposed the war in Vietnam, but I never "hated" the Americans for trying to save an apathetic people from the horrors of Communism. And I soon figured out that many people like Daemon were self loathing, white despising racists who hid their own racism behind a facade of moral superiority.