It is rather frightening that the influence of the
strident right-wing newspaper columnists like -
Andrew Bolt appears to have grown. We no longer seem
to have a "big read," of intelligent press. Only
papers that prey on deeply ingrained habits of
thinking - old prejudices barely contested in mainstream
media. The knot of "brave," Liberal MPs not really
proposing any changes to the old system of mandatory
detention, not even seeking to temper its excesses.

Shame on them!

Ginx,
You're the Minister of Kindness!

I'm quaking, Ginx!

Personal attack, Shadow Min? Twaddle. You're skewered by your own words.

"Are they all worthy of our protection, I have no doubt that most of them would qualify.... the few worthy souls that have been accepted."
- There you go again: pontifical sanctimonious judgment. This was dealt with way back. You still sound like god hectoring St Peter at the pearly gates.

Many nations live in dire poverty under hopeless governments, largely left to their fate. Who are we to tell "400m just a short boat ride away" that they are to stay home or go home? If indeed there were that many desperate people slow-boating to Australia, how the hell could they be stopped? Are you not painting a scenario that a return to Howard's draconian measures (only partially mitigated by Rudd), or any other measures for that matter, could not possibly prevent? This scare-mongering scenario is most unlikely; but if it ever were to eventuate the idea of this tiny nation of over-consuming “taxpayers” ordering them to 'get back in the queue' just beggars belief. Still, I must admit, “400m” asking themselves, ‘Why should they have it all while we suffer?’ would be not completely implausible, nor impertinent, any consideration of “worthiness” aside.

"I am not happy to double, triple or quadruple this, and according to the polls, neither are the majority of Austalia (sic)."
- Has the Australian public been properly polled to see if they would “double, triple or quadruple” it? Don't point to a Herald Sun phone poll, either. Your postage stamp calculations take no account of contributions to society or tax paid by those in employment, nor the amount saved by scrapping the ‘Pacific Solution’. WHY are you not happy to increase this arbitrary amount? The amount you quote is dwarfed beside that wasted by “taxpayers” on middle class welfare - private health rebates, private school funding, negative gearing, baby bonuses, family tax allowances, home buyers' grants etc etc. which lead to 40% of Australians paying no net tax at all.
Oh, right… they’re “bludgers” and you’re a righteous “taxpayer”!

Rapscallion,

You set yourself up as an authority on the issue "This was dealt with way back. You still sound like god hectoring St Peter at the pearly gates."

Your fatuous unsupported opinion does not mean the issue is dealt with or closed.

"Don't point to a Herald Sun phone poll, either."

Try googling australia polls immigration as I did and the results give from 55% to 80% in favour of the existing immigration policy. Whilst most are not professional polls the total result gives no doubt as to how most of Aus feels.

"This scare-mongering scenario is most unlikely"

The best comparison I can give is with Canada (with more difficult access), which has lax immigration laws and who now have between 200 000 and 500 000 undocumented illegal immigrants many of whom are unemployable.

Perhaps you would deign to impart some of your vast experience to show why the liberal and labor governments are wrong and you are right. To date your flatulent sniping is completely unsupported.

As to your 40% zero net tax payers, most of these are single persons earning less than $20k p.a. the very pool you wish to add to with the illegal immigrants. Increasing the numbers on welfare means the money has to come from somewhere, and the most likely source is reduced benefits to those that actually need it.

The more you earn the more tax you pay and less benefits you get. The middle class subsidies are a pittance compared with what the lower earners get, and only a fraction of what they pay in tax. From your political views I could take a wild guess that reducing the benefits to the middle class would not affect you, which is why you are so self righteous in offering it up.

Words are cheap, evidence has actually currency.

Examinator and Ginx,

I've made several attempts to decipher your illiterate gibberings, on this occasion and on many others, but I've made no headway at all. I assume that there are a few here who understand your peculiar attempts at communication, but I'm not one of them.

So, don't waste your pearls of wisdom on me; I haven't a clue what you are on about. I thought the lack of any response from me would have given you the hint - it usually works with other idiots - but you seem to be special cases.

Okay maybe it is my warped sense of humour but whenever I hear people defending the Herald-Sun and The Australian and their stance on so called 'economic' refugees I often wonder what they make of the newspaper's proprietor.

Here is a bloke who has rejected his Australian citizenship for a foreign one purely for economic reasons, indeed why shouldn't he be thought of as an economic refugee?

In any other circumstances his actions would have brought the ire of the Bolt's of this world down upon his head, yet not a peek or even a pique.

Damn, I wonder why that would be?