I have made the suggestion that we bring them all back to
Christmas Island where we have everything under our control
in two threads but no one has responded.
Is it that Hare Brained an idea ?
We could have professional people to examine them and retrain
the children and Australian teachers in their school.
After a period they could attend a local school.
If any of the women are incorrigible then they can sit on
Nauru Island and contemplate their situation.

"No stray weeds lurking amongst the golden grain."

Doesn't matter. Even if there are no weeds, he'll assert they're there (because its implied) and then spent ten posts trying to get you to address the issue of weeds that never existed in the first place.

Christmas Island.
Is this practical?
Would we need to establish new facilities there to deal with the new arrivals?
Buildings, medical staff, teachers, etc.
And would we simply be avoiding the issue?
Easier to bring them here where they belong.
Then deal with them according to law.
Cuts a few corners I think.
And I don't believe they are all secretly plotting to harm us.
To characterise them all in this way is a bit over the top I think.
They are Australian Citizens, and will be dealt with calmly and fairly as and when they return.
They must already understand this, and have accepted it will happen that way.
They still want to return.
And though the Australian Government need not assist them with this return, it surely should not hinder them.
I don't see it as trying to.

I was listening to a news broadcast on this very topic.
I could not help noticing that the points raised were very similar to those expressed here.
Is this a coincidence, or could it be that opinions such as ours are part of their research, so that statements being broadcast are as logical and up to date as possible?
Just a coincidence I think, but it made me wonder.

Implied weeds?
Implication is a powerful tool.
It is definitely something which is real and consequently significant.
The advantage of implication is that we need not be explicit.
We can skirt around a subject in such a way that, though we don't say something directly, our meaning is still clear.
This can save us from being accused of trying to harm someone with words.
Which in today's social climate is a distinct advantage.
So worry not if you have 'implied' without meaning to.
Be cheerful, and work out how to do it better next time.

mhaze,

If you think I'm inventing "weeds", the fix is simple: state your position plainly, in one or two sentences, and I'll respond to that.

What I won't do is treat insinuation and anecdote as substitutes for a clear claim.

If you're saying "there are favoured groups under the law", that's not a weed I planted. Those are your words. Either you mean it in a structural sense, or you mean "some sentences annoy me." Those are different arguments.

So make the claim explicit, and we can talk about it. If you'd rather keep it vague, that's your choice, but don't blame me for asking for clarity.