The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > General Discussion > 'May they rot in hell'

'May they rot in hell'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. 19
  13. ...
  14. 21
  15. 22
  16. 23
  17. All
*It takes more than a good story to fool the hard-nosed bureaucrats whose decisions seal the fate of these poor hapless souls, entirely at their mercy.*

Bronwyn, unless of course that bureaucrat is a soft touch like
yourself. I would have you in tears in minutes with my sob story :)

Some obvious things are picked up, like Pakistanis sometimes posing
as Afghans. The rest of the time it is on the official to prove that
the claimant is lying, extremely difficult to do, if they are a good
story teller. The claimant only has to fear persecution, not have
been persecuted. Big difference!

*Telling asylum seekers they should wait in a squalid overcrowded refugee camp is effectively condemning them to years of suffering in the most intolerable conditions*

Well no wonder. The West is spending such a fortune to set up
barricades, that there is no money left for those camps. That
is exactly my point. Spend less on barricades, redirect those funds
to be spent on the people who really need it.

*so too many Afghanis and Iraqis have been forced to move as that same imperialist power has inexplicably invaded and destroyed their part of the world.*

Err, I remind you that roughly twenty million Iraqis are living in
Iraq and a similar number of people are living in Afghanistan.
In fact many refugees returned, once the Taliban lost power.

Now somebody like yourself, who only knows a relatively cushy
lifestyle, might find it tough to live there, but people who have
learnt how to cope all their lives, clearly are getting on with life.

The fact remains that Australia cannot take them all Bronwyn. Now
tell me, in your opinion how many refugees a year should Australia
accept?

If Australia decided to only take asylum seekers from countries
which ajoin us, the rest of the refugee quota, whatever is decided,
from refugee camps all over the world, that would be fair and
cost effective. The present system is neither cost effective or
fair.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 1:45:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What Bronwyn said. Plus:

How many boat people have been revealed as terrorists since 2001?

Answer:

ZERO.

The same cannot be said for people who arrive by plane, with visas.
Posted by Fractelle, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 1:48:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
OK, try this.

We put a condition on residency, or citizanship. A 4 year stint in the army.

This would weed out most of the undesirables, & cowards. If they are not prepared to serve this country, there is no reason that this country should have them.

It also overcomes the massive expenditure involved in "settling in" help, as they will have a suitable income.

If we are going to send citizans to Afganistan, to fight for that country, we might as well send those who can speak the lingo.

Once the details of such a requirement became known, we would see a massive drop off in boat people, & an acceptance in Oz that the ones who still came were the type of people we should want to settle here.

A win/win, if ever there was one.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 4:19:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
' If they are not prepared to serve this country, there is no reason that this country should have them.'

God I hope they dont deport me. I'm really not keen on joining the Army myself. Do you think it would be hypocritical to expect poor starving immigrants to take up the slack for me?

I'm with that little barking dog guy on this one. What's all the bloody fuss about? I think if someone is brave enough to travel that far in a dingy to get here they have proved their determination to be here, like a true blue strayan.

In a true sign of today's society, I really think we could pay for any cost of setting them up here if we filmed their efforts reality TV style and bet on which boats made it here before sinking.

Now that's more Australian than wearing the Aussie flag like a cape!
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 4:57:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mikk,
Spot on.
Trading in others misery with such criminal indiference to their 'customers'lives, conditions, safety etc. Conditions that are both horrendous and incredibly dangerous, against the laws of most countries etc
Yep sounds like a business venture to me....from hell.
The implied indifference and or distain for these desparate people is inherent in this assumption of Caveat Emptor is positively perverse.
I wonder why if we don't want them here why not give them a positive reason to stay home. Oh yes I forgot the profit might not come this financial cycle.
BTW if it was meant as satire sorry not funny...at all
Posted by examinator, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 5:51:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah Examinator, as usual you show a lack of wisdom :)

It would of course be very easy to introduce a luxury service
for asylum seekers, even chartering the Queen Mary for the
job.

That is not the problem. The problem is the contradiction of
Govt, on the one hand claiming to welcome asylum seekers,
on the other hand fighting them off with sticks.

They do this for the very reasons that I have explained. Nobody
had the testicles to see that the UN 1951 convention is updated
to suit our new world conditions of far too many people.

What say you all tell us, how many asylum seekers a year that
you think Australia should accept, and how many you think that
a Govt could risk, without being thrown out by the Australian
public.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 22 April 2009 8:25:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 13
  7. 14
  8. 15
  9. Page 16
  10. 17
  11. 18
  12. 19
  13. ...
  14. 21
  15. 22
  16. 23
  17. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy