Lexi, you can't reclaim any moral high ground by trying to buy it from the rip off merchants coming in here now by boat.

It is obvious that our illustrious Labor party have been trying to buy the vote of boat people, & fellow travelers with their policies.

We now see that they realise the flow of votes is negative. They are loosing more votes pandering to the rip off merchants, than they are gaining.

Amazingly a new policy appears, one perhaps more in Oz peoples advantage. I wonder what could have precipitated such a change of policy? Surely not some polling.

How anyone can vote for these cynical bast4rds is beyond me.

Dear Hasbeen,

I take your word for it that it's beyond you.

However, the following website might clarify a few things for you -
especially why some voters could never vote for Tony Abbott and Co.

http://newmatilda.com/2011/05/16/why-abbotts-budget-economic-twaddle

However, the following website might clarify a few things for you -
Lexi,
You rather take the fantasy of a Labor voting tosser before allowing yourself to realise that Tony Abbott's team are a viable alternative to the present circus.

Dear Individual,

Did you actually read the link?
The possibilities of Tony Abbott getting in -
scares the living daylights out of me.
Australia will be stuffed if he gets in.
The guy's a nut-case.

The guy's a nut-case.
Lexi,
If that's the case then what description do you have for the present Government's leader ?

Lexi
Regrettably, someone needed to remind you of what you said -- you seem incapable of remembering it otherwise.

Let me remind you of your opening comments:

<<I’m not sure what point you're trying to make with this case - except perhaps to taint all asylum seekers with the same brush? That would be most unfair - as according to the available statistics - even during the time of Howard's "Pacific Solution" most asylum seekers were found to be genuine refugees…I'm sure that those who aren't genuine will be dealt with accordingly. We need less fear-mongering because there is clear evidence that there is no need to be concerned>>

When this became unsustainable, you tried to divert the discussion with:

<< How many I wonder, of previous arrivals to this country in the past could be classified as crims, refugees, or economic seekers>>

If you were appealing for SPECIAL ENTRY for boat people on the basis that they were “REFUGEES” the character /motivations of past immigrants is irrelevant .

As repeatedly stated: “The purpose of my initial post was to show that certain emotions/behavours that are often cited as evidence of genuineness can easily be manufactured to impress the more naïve.”

It was NOT about GENERAL IMMIGRATION, but those who are seeking to use the Refugee Convention as a pretext for immigration

So lengthy soliloquy’s about the JOYS OF DIVERSITY --full of the same faux-emotions we saw exhibited by the cigarette smuggler-- are irrelevant.

As are school marmish retorts like:
<<Before you make sweeping generalisations about what I supposedly said - kindly re-read my posts >>

To sum-up/conclude:
It is pretty clear that on most occasions our processes cannot accurately determine if someone is a genuine refugee.
If they claim to be from one of the danger zones and tell a good story, chances are, they’ll be “found to be a genuine refugee”

Thanks again to everyone who participated

Cheers