SPQR,

What have you debunked about this information from 2011-2012?

"Covering the years 2011-2012, 7036 applications were made for asylum in Australia from people who originally came "by air" - almost exclusively attributable to lodgements from international students."

Are you disputing the official numbers above?

Then you'd better provide some "hard evidence".

Cough up.....

...................

Yah, sorry about that, individual.

One party has an idea to unload them all on Manus and chuck a few tents their way.

The other has a three-star general in charge of shooing them away - and if that fails, they have a great back up plan to unload them all on Nauru and chuck a few tents their way.

Big difference!

Poirot - You fail to listen, in this case read.

If only 10 to 15% were checked properly how could you arrive at a REAL proportion IE 90%? It means 85 to 90% WERE NOT checked properly.

Also a year or so ago some of the people who do the assessment were saying that they were pressured to assess them quickly and some affirmatively. Remember Cap't Emad.

Philip S,

Who says only 10 to 15 per cent are checked properly...and what do you mean by "checked properly"?

I seem to recall SPQR mentioning ASIO (correct me if I'm wrong)...ASIO is not the usual processor and I imagine would only be involved in this issue intermittently.

Give me some "hard evidence" that only 10 to 15 percent of asylum seekers are processed "properly".

Because I don't believe that statement....(even though you keep repeating it, it doesn't mean it's true)

Poirot - Before I waste my time with you can you answer the following question.

Please tell us which one you are?

1) Gullible
or
2) A Hypocrite

I ask this because of your statement Quote "I take official statements on process as evidence."

Here you say you totally believe (as evidence) "official statements" which is gullible - Example please show me where the WMD's were in Iraq after all official statements used that to go to war there are hundreds of more examples that official statements were totally FALSE.

Now it could be hypocritical in you only take as evidence "official statements" on processes only all other official statements are false

Philip S,

The "official statement" by the UN weapon's inspectors was that there were "no" WMD's Iraq.

I believed that.

Poirot - But the "official statement" put out by USA, England etc was they did, so please advise how you determine which "official statement" is the correct one?