Two thousand asylum seekers have arrived by plane, encouraged by the Albanese government’s intention to lift the number of such people to 20,000 a year.

These people are no different from those who used to arrive by boat. If they applied for 'asylum' from outside of Australia, they wouldn't get it. But, having snuck in under the false pretences of tourism, study or whatever, they are just as hard to get rid of as the by-boat lot - only because of our pathetic and gutless inability to send them packing: heightened now by a Leftist government with a leader who wants to "change Australia".

Albanese has already granted permanent residence to people who should have been sent packing by the previous government.

When Labor was in opposition, they said that plane arrivals were "the new boat people".

Of course, the Dutton Opposition continues to doze away, enjoying the lack of responsibility and the pay, hoping that voters will get sick of Labor and put them back in, totally ignorant or disinterested that voters are sick of them too.

The long forgotten Gareth Evans' comment on the ALP intention of turning Australia into a 'coffee-coloured' nation is taking shape, as is the comment that when governments can't get their way from the voters, they change the voters.

Not everything is Labor's fault. Asylum seekers arriving by plane is not a new phenomenon and was just as bad under the previous regime. eg

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/nearly-100-000-asylum-seekers-have-arrived-by-plane-to-australia-in-the-past-five-years/kca08e1bn

That it happens is a major problem for the country. But its clear that neither side have the gumption nor the desire to do what is necessary to bring it to a halt as happened with the boat arrivals.

Still, with the government actively encouraging 400,000 new arrivals per year, a 20,000 false asylum seekers seems a mere rounding error.

Albanese is probably pleased to see the fake asylum seekers turning up because it gives him the extra non-Europeans he wants, and he can chunter about 'compassion'. Queue jumpers and visa-abusers are not Europeans, most of whom would be no better off than they are in the Western countries that they are in. Europeans are no longer very interested in coming here, and I can't blame them.

Apart from the UK at number 3, the top 10 countries immigrants are coming from courtesy of our Big Australia don't-worry-about-the-culture politicians are: India, China, Philippines, Nepal, Vietnam, New Zealand and Hong Kong.

With the immigration mania of both Labor and Liberal, Australia will soon be unrecognisable, and we are supposed to not care about that.

Saint Peter at the pearly gates of heaven?

Who ever gave you an authority to conduct a selection as to who may or may not enter this continent?

Yuyutsu

And who are you addressing your peculiar comments to this time. Who said he has "an authority to conduct a selection as to who may or may not enter this continent"? Not me.

I've posted an opinion on the absurd immigration and 'asylum' policies of my country. You can agree or disagree, or ignore that opinion; but personal comments just show you up as a prat.

Dear Ttbn,

Why "personal"? Are you in person the one who decides who may or may not enter this continent? I think not.

"You" was of course referring to anyone in government who grandiosely believes they earned the position of Saint Peter at the gates of heaven.

Is the parrot referring to the 20,000 people who enter Australia annually, and then overstay their visa. This number represents a very small fraction of the annual non-permanent arrivals, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs puts that number at 0.2% of the total foreign arrivals. Overstaying by 'short term' visa holders is not new, and certainly doesn't represent a sudden invasion of "New Boat People" as the alarmist parrot wants others to believe. The majority of the 20,000 overstayers are short term, and voluntarily leave the country. Overall it is estimated there are about 60,000 people in Australia illegally at any one time. These figures have remained fairly consistent since data was first gathered about 20 years ago, and certainly gives the lie to the inference by the parrot that the Albanese Government is making it easier for illegal people to stay in Australia.

"Who ever gave you an authority to conduct a selection as to who may or may not enter this continent?"

A bigger question here may surround the idea that ttbn has no right to hold a preference over who comes into the country.

I say he has every right to hold a preference over who he wants to share his country with.
I think its a part of democracy, 'We the people' and all that.

Our right to preferences on all topics and issues culminate in our vote, and preference certain candidates over others.

To say ttbn doesn't have a right to that opinion is the greater evil, - for if he does not have the right to voice an opinion on that issue, then that means he has to potentially self censor, which is the equivalent of not being permitted to holding an opinion or preference at all.

To say ttbn cant hold an opinion or preference, looks by default to be 'people who identify as immigrants' trying to silence 'people who identify as Australians'.

Am I wrong?

AC

Thanks for that.

I'm never quite sure what Yuyutsu means: he often seems confused.

In this case I was concerned about the numbers, mainly. But, yes, I believe that all Australians have to right to an opinion on who comes here, as well as how many of them, even though our political class ignores us.

I would prefer a homogeneous society for Australia, even though that gets you called a racist these days, never to your face of course. But, who cares? Not I.

There is NOT strength in diversity; the opposite is true. That's not to disparage people of other races and cultures; it's just that all people are more comfortable with their own kind, evidence by the growing physical and psychological ghettos in Australia. And the Voice.

"I would prefer a homogeneous society for Australia"

Be truthful ttbn, don't be coy, what you mean is you would prefer an Australian society made up of old conservative male Anglo whites, just like yourself. As your Lovely Pauline would say; "PLEASE EXPLAIN?"

Just when you think one forum bigot can't be topped, another chimes in with something even more outrages.

Hi ttbn,
You're welcome, however I wasn't defending you anymore than standing against the idea implied by Yuyutsu that you have no inherent right to an opinion that includes a preference on who comes here and how many.

It may not be a law, but I believe that if your parents lived here and you were born here, you have every right to an opinion on who comes here and how many, -the same as anyone else born here.
- Thinking about it, I actually find it ridiculous and somewhat offensive for anyone to think or suggest otherwise
(But I'm not having a go at you Yuyutsu)
- and you're free to discern based on race, religion or any other factor you use in your own decision-making whether politically-correct or not.

I oppose this idea that you're not permitted to have on opinion on things that impact you, because multicultural Australian ideology assumes you must love immigrants and foreigners and any bad word said even just opposing more arrivals must have a racist basis and therefore not to be spoken of.
I oppose this idea that you're not allowed to have an opinion or preference or like or dislike whomever you choose.
- That this issue or question of 'who and how many and preference' must be redacted from your mind, because you are not permitted to think like that.

Many of these global ideologies seek to silence dissent by labelling a person something-ist,
- 'racist' 'sexist', mysogynist' etc, and all the other words, 'homophobic' 'climate denier' 'bigot'
- They all seek to label a person as 'bad', either for their opinion, or for even just having an opinion.

I don't believe people should be unfairly shamed into silence on issues that affect them.
I don't care if people get offended by things they find uncomfortable.

I think if an issue holds merit you've every right to say it if you choose.
And even if an argument is stupid and doesn't hold merit, there's certainly no law against that either.
(or shortage of examples, especially from those who lead).

'Cultural clashing' is a good description of Australia's immigration lunacy.

Dear Critic,

«A bigger question here may surround the idea that ttbn has no right to hold a preference over who comes into the country.»

I am sorry if that is what you or anyone else understood - this is not what I said:

Firstly, I never referred to Ttbn but to Australian governments in general, in fact to all governments, not only Australian.

Now Ttbn and everyone else may freely hold (and express) any preferences whatsoever, including who (if any) they want to share their country with: there is absolutely nothing wrong about it. Period.

What is wrong, however, is to act upon such preferences by actively selecting, either in person or through one's [democratic] representatives, who is allowed to come and physically block the others from coming.

I hope this clarifies my position.

Hi Yuyutsu,

Your views mostly differ in direction from most on this forum, particularly those of a hard right Nationalists like ttbn. You don't believe in national boarders or the authority of government, that's fine. I think you don't believe anyone has the authority to prevent the free movement of others, and since you don't recognise national boarders then preventing people from moving across those unrecognised boarders is not a question for you. Am I reading you correctly.

Dear Paul,

Thank you, this is correct.

Yuyutsu

You are really in trouble when only the leading nutter on OLO understands you.

That's more than what you can claim.

A nutter here
A nutter there
I see a nutter everywhere
But don't stand behind me
I may be smart
But when I'm stressed
I simply f**t!

Love the sand-pit!
Thanks ttbn.

Hard to top you ttbn, a nutter who threw away his money by being conned into joint The Corny Banana Party and donating his taxpayer welfare. What a joke that was. A nutter, is someone who PARROTS the words of a NOALITION hack politician and tries to present them as his own.

I wonder what wackjobs like Foxy, Paul and SR hope to gain by hounding other posters for their opinions rather than letting their own opinions speak for them. Their stalking and nagging doesn't appear to have made any difference to the majority posters and their opinions.

ttbn - the biggest stalker of them all on this
forum. Who repeats the same messages on each and every
discussion. Attacks people who have different opinions
to his - and when they react it's never his fault
but theirs. He'll go from one discussion to another
even when he disapproves of the topics.

Of course it is easier to attack someone personally based on
falsely drawn conclusions than it is to mount a reasoned
argument.

I've been called that "awful" woman, a communist, Marxist,
a Leftie, a whinger, arrogant, stupid, belonging in a sand-pit, should
be jailed, deported, I like talking about myself (when I
react and answer the accusations), I don't know
anything, and at the same time that I think I am superior,
and the list goes on.

And, I am the problem when I respond.

Still, as disturbing as these attacks are they pale in
comparison to the kinds of hostility directed at many
other people in our society. Especially those who
are Black, Indigenous, Asian, Muslim, lesbian, gay, trans,
politically progressive.

People who on a daily basis are targeted, threatened,
and attempted to be silenced.

Most online abuse comes from certain types of people
who aren't used to personal interaction. Yet
heaps of others manage to regularly share thoughts and
feelings without personally insulting or attacking others.

I've come to the conclusion that people who are nasty
and toxic online - are so because they're nasty and
toxic normally. Being online just allows them to be
themselves because of anonymity without fear of
consequences.

Lately I've taken to reacting more often. I'm not proud
of that. I should simply ignore and walk away. But you
get to the point when you simply have had enough and need
to react and giving someone a black eye you can't do
online.

However, I shall try to keep my reactions to a minimum.
Depending on my mood at the time (smile).

Now go ahead ttbn - attack me - go nuts!

As for calling us wackjobs, and saying that the "majority"
of posters here support you? Well in a nation of sheep,
and especially on this forum, a few brave posters form
a majority.

As usual, everything I say about her, she says about me. She's a mimic. It reminds me of one of my granddaughters - then a toddler - who would watch me like a hawk, and mimic everything I did. She got a giggle out of it; but, an old woman!

I wondered why she stalked and nagged other posters. She doesn't know why. We all comment on a subject that is put up for that purpose - express our opinions, say something the person responsible for the thread mightn't like - but few of us hound other posters for their different opinions on the same subject. That’s typical Marxist cancelling. Most of us are not Marxists, even when we don't march to the same drum.

Apparently I am "hostile" also to those who are Black, Indigenous, Asian, Muslim, lesbian, gay, trans, politically progressive. I am not averse to anyone because of their skin colour, their race or religion. I have made it clear that I would prefer an homogeneous society, as most honest people do, including those people I'm accused of being hostile to. I definitely do not like "political progressive" people; I am put off by people now called 'gay', and I follow the science and common sense that says it is absolutely absurd for people to think that they can change their sex.

So what? I am not responsible for harming "People who on a daily basis are targeted, threatened,and attempted to be silenced".

I'm not sure if she is slagging me off, or using the occasion to bleed over her pet virtue-signalling targets.

"Most online abuse comes from certain types of people who aren't used to personal interaction".

Well, there is some of the arrogance she mentions. She tells everyone "you know nothing about me", but she knows everything about others!

PS

I did not say that the majority of posters support me; they don't. Just Foxy being flexible with the truth.

ttbn,

I'll keep it simple.

I react and respond to personal attacks from people
such as yourself, who specialize in personal attacks.
Comments on discussion forums should be on content,
not personal attacks.

You do not have the right for personal attacks nor
name calling or labeling. Personal attacks are low
and reflect your family background, your training,
and your mentality.

If you cannot keep civility in your postings, kindly
address your comments to those who will appreciate
them.

I shall try to make it my goal from now on to be bigger
than the criticisms you level at me.

BTW: Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Get over yourself. Quit your non-stop nagging of other people because they don't share your views, ideology and opinions, and you won't receive the retaliation your behaviour attracts. Alternatively, don't change but toughen up. Your decision. There is nothing special about you. If you give it, you have to take it, like everyone else.

Australia is not the the 'progressive's paradise you think it should be. Within the rules of OLO. I will continue to say what I think.

ttbn,

There you go again - with "Get over yourself!"

Why not look at yourself for a change.
Why is it always someone
else's fault and never yours? How about accepting
some responsibility? Why should it be me who needs
to "toughen up."

Why should only I toughen up? Why can't you take
as good as you give?
So many "whys."

I can't be held responsible for your insecurities.
And you can't blame me for reacting when you attack
and label.

I have no problem with your saying what you think as
long as you stick to the content - and not delve into
personal insults.

That only encourages responses in kind.

If you feel that you're entitled to say what you think
than so is everyone else - including me. If you intend
to say what you think - then so will the rest of us.

As long as you keep on with personal attacks and labeling
nothing is going to change. Toughening up for me is not
going to work - and why should you be the one to get a
free pass on your behaviour?

Things will not change unless we both make the effort to be
civil. I certainly am going to try.

"Qantas refugees" is the new name being applied to the increasing number of crooks flying into Australia and applying for 'asylum' as soon as they get off the plane.

These unwanted, useless people should not leave the airport to get into the system, but be put back on the next flight back to where they came from.t

Dear Ttbn,

«These unwanted, useless people»

I suppose we, spent force oldies, are very useful...

« should not leave the airport to get into the system»

Perhaps they should not, but what if they do leave the airport anyway?
This does not necessarily gets them into any "system", only into this continent.

«, but be put back on the next flight back to where they came from.»

You may offer them a free flight back, even a financial incentive perhaps, but placing them forcibly on a flight against their will is violence and I am not prepared for that.

Hi Yuyutsu,
(From earlier)
"What is wrong, however, is to act upon such preferences by actively selecting, either in person or through one's [democratic] representatives, who is allowed to come and physically block the others from coming."

I can accept your view, and knowing that you 'don't believe in national boarders or the authority of government' as Paul stated probably makes it easier to accept.

I however think that there's some merit in the idea of approving some and 'blocking' others, (under certain circumstances) rather than an open free-for-all.

As for 'selecting' well I'm not sure.

One of the few things that Australian federal governments are responsible for is the protection of our borders.

They are not very good at it. Were it not for the fact that we are an island remote from the sources of illegal entrants, we would be just as overrun as the UK and Europe are.

It was good to see UK politician Suella Braverman, of Indian heritage like the UK Prime Minister, braving the wrath of the lawless, Marxist name-callers on her country's problem with illegal invaders and 'asylum seekers'.

Dear Critic,

«I however think that there's some merit in the idea of approving some and 'blocking' others, (under certain circumstances) rather than an open free-for-all.»

It is acceptable to act in self-defense.

Acceptable - yes, ideal - no.

A saint would follow in Jesus' steps and turn the other cheek, but we are not saints: a saint recognises their true identity as God, they know that they are infinite and so some physical blow to their finite physical body or the denial of its needs, is no big deal for them; but the rest of us, seemingly ordinary people who fail to see that Truth and are constantly and almost helplessly concerned about the welfare of our bodies, for us self-defense is acceptable since we lack the saint's capacity to do any better.

So under the circumstances, it would be acceptable to deny entry to those who we reasonably believe to wish us harm or to have criminal intents and those who carry dangerous contagious diseases.

This much I agree.

Also, there is no need to "approve" anyone, especially if we do not want them, so if they enter without approval then their status would be like that of any other animal which enters by sea, by air or (less so in Australia) by land. We don't provide social-security payments, free healthcare, education or similar privileges to animals, but we do respect certain "animal rights", so why treat certain animals any worse, assuming they are harmless, just because they happen to belong to the homo-sapiens-sapiens species?

Hey ttbn,

Elon Musk put out a video segment on the US southern border.
http://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1707565081750290910

Thanks AC,

It's good to see the TRUTH from REAL people. And, the Leftists must really hate Elon Musk for getting it out there.

2,700 illegals a day! An influx of 19,000 into a town of 28,000 inhabitants!

No wonder Communist China thinks it can take over from the U.S.

I think the numbers were higher than that.
I read somewhere that there were 11,000 arrivals last weekend.

Everything in the country is a race to the bottom.
Everything is backwards.

Remember how the environmentalists wanted to get slack on the back-burning and half the bush went up before the pandemic?
Remember how people were banned from cutting trees close to their homes and they all burned down?
Now they want to remove shark nets because of marine life welfare
- And people will end up getting eaten.
And they want to stop putting disabled kids in special schools and put them into public schools.
And while this is portrayed as being good for the disabled kids
I think there will be both good and bad aspects of it.

But I've not heard one person talk about how the public school kids educations (who certainly aren't going to private schools), might potentially be negatively impacted by some other autistic kid in the classroom having a meltdown.

(I mean no offense to disabled people, just thinking about public school kids who are already disadvantaged compared to private school kids)

Sometimes I think some of the inequalities they speak of and complain about actually existed for a specific reason.
Many of these modern changes don't result in better outcomes for all.

Ted Cruz Calls out Democrats over immigration
- Worth a watch

BREAKING NEWS: Ted Cruz Accuses Karine Jean-Pierre Of Peddling 'Bulls---' For Biden
http://youtu.be/Dvcbrg5-pds

A bit of good news from Education Minister, Jason Clare.

From next week there will be a crackdown on people using student visas to work, not study.