Australia, the UN, and Refugees

So good to see an intellijent post full of plane good sence.

Send these criminals and child molesters back where they came from now I say! I don't want my Pokie Tax paying for their drugs.

Just don't send them to Malaysia - because that would be cruel and inhumane because Malaysia is not a signatory to the Refugee Treaty. After all - these people aren't criminals.

...wait.....what was the question again?

 

Have you ever heard or seen a map? You can see any number of countries from a map. So I don't need to look out my window to know where Afghanistan, or anywhere else, is.

It's easy. All you really need is a slight knowledge of geography. Ever heard of that when you went to school?

 

Absolutely. Agree 100%

 

No it didn't.

Most of the people sent to Nauru were genuine refugees ended up in Australia or NZ anyway.

How did this "stop the boats".


BTW - Have you ever been to Nauru? Do you know where it is? Do you know how big it is? Do you know where it's food etc comes from?

It is a really, really dumb solution.

 

Cruel and inhumane. What a lot of rubbish.

Please pull someone else's foot, because mine is getting very tired with your 'pretend' refugees platitudes.

 

I know where the countries are sweety, it's your mythical queue I'm talking about. Do try to keep up.

Now, show us some evidence of the queue. Anything.

What's the address of the embassy office where the asylum seekers make their application? Where does the queue start?

Come on, give us something. Anything! Show me the queue.


Oh, and in case you forgot:

"In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no queues for people to jump. Australia has no diplomatic representation in these countries and supports the International coalition of nations who continue to oppose these regimes and support sanctions against them."

However, I'm prepared to accept your evidence that proves otherwise.

 

Having trouble with what 94% means?

 

94% legit. Fact. No pretending.

 

Sorry - you are right. I can't remember what idiot I heard that from...oh wait:

Mr Abbott has said he will only support the legislation if the government accepts an amendment that would rule out Malaysia because it is not a signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention. ... it's a cruel deal for boat people;
http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=664924&vId=2723791

 

So over the last three years we are encouraging illegals to come by boat, but discouraging those to come by plane. Some policy!

Bad luck for those waiting desperately in some refugee camp in Africa!

"So long as the bias remains to those arriving by boats, then the government can expect more to come and greater chaos in their asylum policies," he said. "The system bias pulls people into boats'. (Scott Morrison).

 

Nope. They aren't "illegals": they're legal asylum seekers.

Moreover, 94% of them are legit refugees.

Not sure where you're getting the "illegals" misinformation from; the Bolt Report maybe?

 

Both parties are playing politics with our disreptuable, grossly misnamed 'refugee policy'.

Anyone that can't see that, is either blind or refuses to see what's directly under nose.

 

In the last 3 years 94% of the legal asylum seekers that came by boat were granted refugee status.

"Refugee Policy" is a perfectly apt name.

 

Are you sure you understand the meaning of the word QUEUE?

Get real. These people are queue jumpers and nothing else, and they must be given the good old Aussie boot, back from whence they came. Pronto!

 

The last three years, because of meddling by our Legal Beagles. How pathetic!

 

"Pathetic"? LOL

94% of them were legitimate refugees. Do you have something against legitimate refugees?

I welcome every one of them.

 

I know it's hard Tank but try and get past your Labor/Green brain washing and respond to what I actually said instead of a label I used in what I said.

 

Like Tank, Uncle you need to get past your Labor/Green brainwashing which has caused you to focus on a label used within, instead of the message itself.
Go read it again and next time try to respond to what I said.

 

Silly little word games again. Most of these people pass up on numerous opportunities for refuge on their way to Australia. Only a brainwashed PC mind could fail to recognise the obvious fact that they are in reality, economic immigrants.

 

I did respond to what you said: get off your high pony.

You said: "The average persons idea of what a refugee is wouldn't fit most of the hopefulls trying to gate-crash Australia."

I responded to the 'gate-crash' lie, and exposed the error in your post.

Now I'l respond to your assumption ...

... I disagree.

Most (educated) people understand what an asylum seeker is. The 'average person' is actually quite compassionate.

Don't be fooled by the over representation of ignorant xenophobes on this forum: most people are actually sympathetic to genuine asylum seekers (94% of the legal boat people have been granted refugee status in the last 3 years).

 

The issue is the process of how they get here.

It is completely stupid that we get people from Afghanistan, who fly to Indonesia, destroy their passports, and then pay $10k+ to organised criminals to 'smuggle' them across the border in overpacked/rubbish boats that every so often sink and kill them.

That is not a 'process', that's bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

I still don't see why we couldn't ditch the UN agreement, and create individual agreements with a handful of countries (Indonesia, Iraq, Afghanistan) and target all resources to these areas. And just exclude everyone else.

Or how about if these people can pay $10k to a criminal, they could pay it instead to cover the cost of their application process (possibly open to corruption, but it's just an idea), and not be subject to any quotas and have a private case worker who deals with their application.

The 'just process whoever rocks up on our shores'... strategy (if you can really call it that) is just retarded. We're required by law to accept anyone, and at the same time both major parties are committed basically trying to stop anyone coming. It's contradictory and it's stupid. Either we just throw open the borders, or we get a real process.

Migration imo should be a purely economic decision for us, including refugees. There will never be a shortage of refugees, don't see any reason why we can't simply pick and choose who we want and from where, especially if they're going to be processed at our expense.

 

I didn't vote Labor.

 

No Uncle, you did not responded to what I said before. You focused on what was really a meaningless label and made no comment on the gist of what I was saying.
You have now responded to a part of what I said. If you had any cognitive ability above your PC, Labor/Green brainwashing you would have posted a response to the main point I was making.
I still maintain that the average persons definition of refugee is nothing like the UN's definition. Yes most people are compassionate, compassionate to what they consider a refugee by their own definition which I would wager is a lot narrower than the extremely broad UN definition.
I say again, it is the UN definition of refugee that is screwed up and we need to stop using it.

 

Sigh... Ever heard the saying, "two planks on edge?" usually accompanied by a hand signal of two stiffened hands one above the other being tapped together edge on.

 

They should come through the proper channels and not jump and tread all over those waiting patiently in some overseas camp. How disgusting and utterly selfish and encouraged ,of course, by our legal beagles. Why would they ever care!