The Forum > General Discussion > Should We Pay People Smugglers?
Should We Pay People Smugglers?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 52
- 53
- 54
- Page 55
- 56
- 57
- 58
- ...
- 63
- 64
- 65
-
- All
Posted by Paul1405, Sunday, 5 July 2015 9:15:38 AM
| |
Hi Paul,
Thanks for getting back to topic. It's probably cheaper to pay off crews to take the boats back, than to blow them out of the water. Don't let you imagination get away from you :) Ultimately, there seem to be two options: * rigid control of borders, of definite quotas, and of the selection of both migrants and refugees; * open borders: if you can pay, you can come. To that second option, the question arises: how many people from India, China, Philippines, etc., etc., would like to come to Australia ? Among other things, would that put some pressure on accommodation, and house prices, not to mention welfare payments ? And since migrants tend to be young, they will probably start - or continue - their families here, putting pressure on school numbers. I'm in favour of doubling the refugee quota to 30,000, of genuinely desperate and destitute refugees - God knows there are plenty of them - sixty million currently - without having to bend the rules for paying economic migrants from those countries mentioned above. I really do like Foxy, she has such good heart, and so rarely slags anybody else, she always seems to see the bright side, and the good side of people. I hope she doesn't mind my expressions of admiration for her - they are genuine and honest. I hope I never inadvertently hurt her feelings with any comment. But BTT: of those options, which one do you favour ? Cheers, Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 5 July 2015 10:07:26 AM
| |
"Hi Paul,
Thanks for getting back to topic." Lol!....you can always guaratee the old "BTT" is never far away when Loudy's called out on his approach. Forgot this one" "Dear Foxy.....LOL [lots of love] Joe" Can we take it then, Joe, that in future you are going to desist from messing with Foxy in such a manner and show her the same respect that you display to the blokes around here? BTT! Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 5 July 2015 10:29:08 AM
| |
Hi Poirot,
I look forward to the day when you get BTT. If I may be permitted to go off-topic, I have nothing but admiration and respect for Foxy, as I'm sure do many posters ol OLO. Now BTT, as you suggest: Are those two options - rigid control of entry; and open borders - the only options, in your opinion ? No hurry, Poirot: Nor flocks of wounded swans, nor herds of brightly-coloured unicorns, nor oceans of offended tears - may they deflect your attention to topic :) Cheers, Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 5 July 2015 10:59:16 AM
| |
Dear Joe (Loudmouth),
Thank You for all your endearments and kind words. But in future - why not keep things on a more professional level - which would be more appropriate for a public forum such as this one. Here is a link that may be of interest regarding asylum seekers: http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/post/2015-05-01/australia-unsustainable-approach-to-asylum-seekers.aspx Posted by Foxy, Sunday, 5 July 2015 11:37:39 AM
| |
As you wish, Foxy.
That article is nine weeks old: a lot has happened in those nine weeks. Who would have thought that something as simple as paying off boat crews would have such a dramatic effect ? So what other options are there, besides rigid control vs. open borders ? Regards, Joe Posted by Loudmouth, Sunday, 5 July 2015 11:55:47 AM
|
Hi Joe,
My reference to "communists" was a witticism, I recall the time anyone who disagreed with the establishment would see some old biddies and conservative politicians like Old Joh in Qld, branding them "communists". I recall my days of protesting the Vietnam War and having an old lady with a blue rinse in her hair castigating me and my friends as "you are all communists, you should be ashamed of yourselves, you all should get back to Moscow where you belong, etc etc. The conservatives branded any dissenters on anything as "communists". The post was more satirical than factual, done to demonstrate how easy it can be for freedoms which we all enjoy can be eroded by stealth, little by little, even by well meaning people like Abbott, with the majorly standing by and not as much as a word will allow this to happen. The old, the government must do what is necessary for the greater good crap, which I and others do not accept.
What I fear is accept this now, and possible in the future with another government, not Abbott as he is not that radical a person, it too might implement another "stop the boats policy", but not like Abbott who simply turns them around, this future regime blows them out of the water. The well meaning people simply stand ideally by and say "well they are only doing what is necessary." I belive our freedom have to be well guarded and never compromised.
Paul.