Wow!...

"honey" now!

I think you should continue with this strategy - after all none of the other fellas on OLO resort to gender-targeted patronisation...maybe they could learn something?

"To be honest, I really do mean those terms of endearment..."

Hilarious!

You really mean them as patronising sexist put-downs (deployed when you've got nothing left in the larder) - that's what you mean.

The fact that you only pull them out when you're debating women is the telling principle here.

It's pathetic...but do carry on.

It's saying a lot more about you than it is about moi.

Hi Poirot,

Strangely, I use those terms of endearment because I like you, even if you are a bit of rat-bag. Like me, I suppose, and on the same journey. Okay, I'll stop.

BTT, if it's okay with you: Peter Dutton. What he said. About refugees taking jobs (utterly ridiculous). About refugees being illiterate, often in their own language (probably true in some cases). About 10 % of male refugees and 20 % of female refugees never having been to school (true, measurable), and how long, and how much expense, it may take to bring them up to speed, if ever (also measurable).

We can't solve the world's problems for every country which mistreats its own people. Education in, say, Afghanistan is so abysmal, but that really is primarily Afghanistan's problem, not ours. How it treats its women is an indictment on its culture, not ours. We should do what we can, but ultimately it's their own struggle.

On the other side of the balance-sheet, of course we should take decent numbers of refugees once they have properly applied and gone through the usual bureaucratic jungle, like everybody else. Ideally, they shouldn't be coming in leaky boats after paying exorbitant fees, as the Greens would prefer. God knows why.

I suppose it's because, if they came here in seaworthy boats after paying standard commercial fares, someone would ask: "Then why not let them fly here, it's quicker and less risky ? Why boats ? Let them fly in from anywhere to here ?"

And why limit it to refugees ? Why not economic migrants, fleeing for a better economic life ? Australia's a big country. Half a billion from India, half a billion from China, no worries.

Any answers, Poirot ? No ? Never mind, feel free to vent :)

Cheers,

Joe

the less the left have to offer the angrier and louder they get before pulling the victimisation card.

Loudmouth,

"Then why not let them fly here, it's quicker and less risky ? Why boats ? Let them fly in from anywhere to here"

But they do fly in...they're already flying in and applying for asylum.

For instance, in 2011-12 there were over 7,000 applications for asylum by Irregular Maritime Arrivals - or IMAs (people who came by boat). In that same period there were over 7,000 applications for asylum by non-IMAs (people who came by air).

Notwithstanding that this govt has for all intents and purposes stopped the boats that come from reaching our shores, one imagines that there are still thousands of applications per annum for asylum from non-IMAs.

http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/asylum-trends-aus-annual-2011-12.pdf

I don't see you or the usual suspects here - or Peter Dutton, for that matter - waving your arms in outrage over that.

It's all saved for the boat people, which turns out to be a nice little vote puller for the major parties - being that Aussies are particularly insular and fearful souls.

Hi Poirot,

Australia has a migrant intake, and a refugee intake. Refugees apply and may or may not be a part of the annual intake. There are more than fifty million refugees and displaced persons in the world. I take it for granted that many apply to come to Australia. Presumably, if they fly to Australia without having had their applications approved, they are put on the next plane back. I think we are agreed there.

My point was: that if it is okay to come to Australia by leaky boat after paying exorbitant fees, then why leaky boats ? Why not seaworthy boats ? Why not after paying commercial fares ? Why not flying ? Whoever wants to come ?

There is a quota. I think it should be lifted, but there you go. Anybody trying to come illegally by boat will be turned back. If you feel that they SHOULD come and that nobody should be turned back, re-read that last paragraph a few times.

So I'm not sure why I'm supposed to wave my arms about. Maybe I'm a completely heartless bastard ? YES/NO

Joe

Loudmouth,

"My point was: that if it is okay to come to Australia by leaky boat after paying exorbitant fees, then why leaky boats ? Why not seaworthy boats ? Why not after paying commercial fares ? Why not flying ? Whoever wants to come ?"

I just explained to you that in 2011-12 there were over 7,000 applications for asylum from people who originally flew into Australia (non-IMAs)

These were not people who flew in and were immediately turned around and flown out of the country.

Students accounted for 47% of the applications.

You are suggesting that people who wish to apply for asylum should come by means other than leaky boats.

My point is that they already do.