Another boat carrying asylum seekers has been intercepted in Australian waters.

The Australian government said on Sunday it was spotted north east of Scott Reef in the Timor Sea.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/54966/another-boat-of-asylum-seekers-intercepted-by-australia



so I take it i will never see headlines such as this when Tony is PM?
His campaign has really scared them off


LOl

GO TONY

He hasn't got the bat phone plugged in yet. Give him a go, he's recovering from a hissy-fit.

Quote:

He hasn't got the bat phone plugged in yet. Give him a go, he's recovering from a hissy-fit.

If he's in power next week - he'll be able to instruct the Navy to fire warning shots over their heads. That will scare them for sure.

He has stated that only 3 boats a year will arrive on our shores - so that means all the rest will be shot at. I wonder how he'll choose which ones will stay.

mantra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:13am:

Quote: He hasn't got the bat phone plugged in yet. Give him a go, he's recovering from a hissy-fit. If he's in power next week - he'll be able to instruct the Navy to fire warning shots over their heads. That will scare them for sure. He has stated that only 3 boats a year will arrive on our shores - so that means all the rest will be shot at. I wonder how he'll choose which ones will stay.

Or, ironically, were he to get up, his government may ship would-be boat people into Australia before they board their own leaky ones... Or pay them to stay in Indonesia... Wouldn't the Indonesians love that  ;D...

Nah, but more likely, he'll order the navy to shoot at them... Like the Singaporeans do.

well personally I think anything he does will be better than the white flag waving that Labor has given the people smugglers..their come one, come all policy, sucks..I wonder how many of you guys sit back calmly whilst someone pushes you out of the way to get the last parking spot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. yes we all like being queue jumped dont we?

This is why the election results are good. We have some people with hearts in the senate to block retarded policies that the libs would try to pass. They won't stand a chance and Tony will have to at least pretend he's a little bit humane.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 8:23am:

This is why the election results are good. We have some people with hearts in the senate to block retarded policies that the libs would try to pass. They won't stand a chance and Tony will have to at least pretend he's a little bit humane.

That`s it pansi, keep the boats coming!  :D

Pansi, do you have any idea what a minute fraction of people who are in need of asylum these boat people represent?  These are only the rich ones, the very fortunate ones, there are teaming millions of people in our region whose lives are on a knife edge.  You are "supporting" a very tiny portion of the capitalist ones, you aren`t really addressing the problem.

To support people smuggling is a very narrow minded, emotive view.

Dont these boat people know Abbott could be PM? why would they be coming here when they know he'll  let them drown at sea?
surly he wasn't bullshitting when he said he'd limit the boats to three a year?

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:21am:

Dont these boat people know Abbott could be PM? why would they be coming here when they know he'll  let them drown at sea? surly he wasn't bullshitting when he said he'd limit the boats to three a year?

Are you competing for "dopiest post of the year"?
You`re doing well. ;D

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:25am:

skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:21am: Dont these boat people know Abbott could be PM? why would they be coming here when they know he'll  let them drown at sea? surly he wasn't bullshitting when he said he'd limit the boats to three a year? Are you competing for "dopiest post of the year"? You`re doing well. ;D

Dont underestimate yourself old man, no one could write dopey sh1t as well as YOU DO.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:27am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:25am: skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:21am: Dont these boat people know Abbott could be PM? why would they be coming here when they know he'll  let them drown at sea? surly he wasn't bullshitting when he said he'd limit the boats to three a year? Are you competing for "dopiest post of the year"? You`re doing well. ;D Dont underestimate yourself old man, no one could write dopey sh1t as well as YOU DO.

No second prizes dump skip. ;D

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:37am:

skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:27am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:25am: skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:21am: Dont these boat people know Abbott could be PM? why would they be coming here when they know he'll  let them drown at sea? surly he wasn't bullshitting when he said he'd limit the boats to three a year? Are you competing for "dopiest post of the year"? You`re doing well. ;D Dont underestimate yourself old man, no one could write dopey sh1t as well as YOU DO. No second prizes dump skip. ;D

Wow, that was witty ,wanker.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:46am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:37am: skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:27am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:25am: skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:21am: Dont these boat people know Abbott could be PM? why would they be coming here when they know he'll  let them drown at sea? surly he wasn't bullshitting when he said he'd limit the boats to three a year? Are you competing for "dopiest post of the year"? You`re doing well. ;D Dont underestimate yourself old man, no one could write dopey sh1t as well as YOU DO. No second prizes dump skip. ;D Wow, that was witty ,wanker.

Dit it take you all that time to work it out?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 9:54am:

skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:46am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:37am: skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:27am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:25am: skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 9:21am: Dont these boat people know Abbott could be PM? why would they be coming here when they know he'll  let them drown at sea? surly he wasn't bullshitting when he said he'd limit the boats to three a year? Are you competing for "dopiest post of the year"? You`re doing well. ;D Dont underestimate yourself old man, no one could write dopey sh1t as well as YOU DO. No second prizes dump skip. ;D Wow, that was witty ,wanker. Dit it take you all that time to work it out?

NO, I knew you were a total wank after I read your first post here.

ethelsidebottom wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 9:25pm:

Another boat carrying asylum seekers has been intercepted in Australian waters. The Australian government said on Sunday it was spotted north east of Scott Reef in the Timor Sea. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/world/54966/another-boat-of-asylum-seekers-intercepted-by-australia so I take it i will never see headlines such as this when Tony is PM? His campaign has really scared them off LOl GO TONY

No, the foreign criminal gangs are too stupid to take a hint.
When Tony's policies put the crew in the clink for a mandatory 10 year sentence is when we will see the boat arrivals halt.
Just like it did once before, remember. :)

It would seem the only politician concerned about the boat people and the Australian people is Rob Oakeshott, and his proposal to have a processing centre in Australia is a good one. $350 million stays in Australia and Australian jobs are created, instead of all that money and jobs going to another country.

When did the boats stop before? Number of “boat people” varies with wars/famines/floods etc

culldav wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 11:34am:

It would seem the only politician concerned about the boat people and the Australian people is Rob Oakeshott, and his proposal to have a processing centre in Australia is a good one. $350 million stays in Australia and Australian jobs are created, instead of all that money and jobs going to another country.

Well, we've done that one too remember.
Which is why it was stopped in the first place.
Endless court appeals initiated by the taxpayer funded lawyers, on behalf of the disaffected asylum seeker unhappy with the judges decision coupled with the sewing of lips together might make great media fodder, but it proves nothing and saves no money at all.

Darwin wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 11:36am:

When did the boats stop before? Number of “boat people” varies with wars/famines/floods etc

Howards three boats in a year is still the record for Labor to beat.

And the number of 'boat people' also vary as we found out when Labor removes a working policy to install a failed one.

Three boats a year is better than the three boats a week under Labor which we had not long ago. :)

Abbott  seems a  little  'sooky' to be dealing with boats just at present... :-*

wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:04pm:

Abbott  seems a  little  'sooky' to be dealing with boats just at present... :-*

That would be true of both leaders right about now. ;)

Lets not forget less boats means more planes. Oops! I forgot, it's only the boats that worry you lot. Has Tony got a plane phone connected to the air force? will they turn the planes around?

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 11:54am:

Darwin wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 11:36am: When did the boats stop before? Number of “boat people” varies with wars/famines/floods etc Howards three boats in a year is still the record for Labor to beat. And the number of 'boat people' also vary as we found out when Labor removes a working policy to install a failed one. Three boats a year is better than the three boats a week under Labor which we had not long ago. :)

Wow, you too fell for the pea and thimble trick of Howard’s Pacific nonSolution? Do you know the number of refugees reaching Australia during those years never declined because of the PS? Just kept varying with world calamities.

Any Lib here, there is a bridge in Sydney, been in my family for years, up for sale cheap.

And why worry about the boats anyhow? because the Australian population are sheep and Howard knew how to play the xenophobia in the mob of sheep that is the electorate.

The electorate doesnt want an open borders policy decided by morons like you and labor

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:11pm:

Lets not forget less boats means more planes. Oops! I forgot, it's only the boats that worry you lot. Has Tony got a plane phone connected to the air force? will they turn the planes around?

You fly in on a visa and have a passport - we know who you are.
You come on a boat without papers - we don't.

Spot the difference, if you can (careful, it's tricky).

I feel & wonder the Sad thing about taking the election to 'western sydney' is 'these people' are sick (or tired ) of immigration but use the blame  on  boat people ....

thats the impression I got

They can’t? So how come 90-95% make it to Australia while nearly all asylum seekers who arrive by plane are sent back?

I repeat, what is so bad about a few boatloads of refugees arriving here to seek asylum?

culldav wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 11:34am:

It would seem the only politician concerned about the boat people and the Australian people is Rob Oakeshott, and his proposal to have a processing centre in Australia is a good one. $350 million stays in Australia and Australian jobs are created, instead of all that money and jobs going to another country.

First time for everything, I agree 100%.

 Re: Another Boat
Reply #18 - Today at 11:49am     culldav wrote on Today at 11:34am:
It would seem the only politician concerned about the boat people and the Australian people is Rob Oakeshott, and his proposal to have a processing centre in Australia is a good one. $350 million stays in Australia and Australian jobs are created, instead of all that money and jobs going to another country.



Well, we've done that one too remember.
Which is why it was stopped in the first place.
Endless court appeals initiated by the taxpayer funded lawyers, on behalf of the disaffected asylum seeker unhappy with the judges decision coupled with the sewing of lips together might make great media fodder, but it proves nothing and saves no money at all.  
Back to top  


Surely Australia could construct a system whereby we don't go down that road again.  Create legislation that stops the endless court appeals. Surely Australians have the intellect to create a fair system on its own land.

How can a country like Australia be seen as an internation player, when we don't have the mental intellect to handle our own problems, and have to pass simplistic problems off to other countries to handle.

Darwin wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:28pm:

I repeat, what is so bad about a few boatloads of refugees arriving here to seek asylum?

Well I throw it back to you - why should we accept them? Why?

Here's why we shouldn't -

1) They arrive with no skills so can't contribute effectively to the tax pool.

2) They arrive with no assets. So WE the people have to pay for them from day 0 (provide housing, benefits etc) - bear in mind they have paid NOTHING towards all this.

3) They have just turned up on a boat expecting to be let in. Those who have come from Sri Lanka etc have by-passed numerous third countries and even set off from third countries to get here.

4) They are culturally unsuited to Australia. Hence with the violent African gangs and Somali ghettos arising - they have come from lawless countries and their teenage thugs are not used to law and order.


In short the people are a nuisance, they are not wanted, they cost us money, they are socially destructive and they add nothing to the country.

They are rubbish.

They are not all unskilled bludgers. We have had doctors and other professionals in the past, who if they hadn't been detained by the Howard government for so long would have made a good contribution to this country.

One thing you have to credit them for is the courage and initiative it would take to escape from where they came and then battle it out on a leaky boat only to be met by further hostility.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:42pm:

Darwin wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 12:28pm: I repeat, what is so bad about a few boatloads of refugees arriving here to seek asylum? Well I throw it back to you - why should we accept them? Why? Here's why we shouldn't - 1) They arrive with no skills so can't contribute effectively to the tax pool. 2) They arrive with no assets. So WE the people have to pay for them from day 0 (provide housing, benefits etc) - bear in mind they have paid NOTHING towards all this. 3) They have just turned up on a boat expecting to be let in. Those who have come from Sri Lanka etc have by-passed numerous third countries and even set off from third countries to get here. 4) They are culturally unsuited to Australia. Hence with the violent African gangs and Somali ghettos arising - they have come from lawless countries and their teenage thugs are not used to law and order. In short the people are a nuisance, they are not wanted, they cost us money, they are socially destructive and they add nothing to the country. They are rubbish.

I only need one point to say why we should accept them.
1- because sir Robert Menzies signed the agreement in 1951 to accept refugees, if you want to change that and have Australia opt out of the UN agreement on refugees you'll need Abbott to do it.
But I think you'll find Australia loses a lot of respect from the rest of the world when they see what a red neck bunch of xenophobes we really are.

I have said many times that I am against asylum seekers being housed in motels, hotels, caravan parks and other places after they are released from detention and awaiting Public Housing. Meanwhile other homeless Australians have to live garages, parks, alley-ways, and under bridges.

The thing is; this situation is not the fault of the refugees, its the fault of our Governments by not being competent enough is knowing how to spend the Australian's tax dollars.

If pollies gave up part of their lurks 'n' perks and "junkets" then Australia would have enough money to build permanent accommodation for everyone.

culldav wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:51pm:

I have said many times that I am against asylum seekers being housed in motels, hotels, caravan parks and other places after they are released from detention and awaiting Public Housing. Meanwhile other homeless Australians have to live garages, parks, alley-ways, and under bridges. The thing is; this situation is not the fault of the refugees, its the fault of our Governments by not being competent enough is knowing how to spend the Australian's tax dollars. If pollies gave up part of their lurks 'n' perks and "junkets" then Australia would have enough money to build permanent accommodation for everyone.

would you stop it now? I hate agreeing with you.

mantra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:

They are not all unskilled bludgers. We have had doctors and other professionals in the past, who if they hadn't been detained by the Howard government for so long would have made a good contribution to this country. One thing you have to credit them for is the courage and initiative it would take to escape from where they came and then battle it out on a leaky boat only to be met by further hostility.

Neither do we have any say in who boards these boats, so your point cancels itself out.

If Australian politicians, political parties and Governments are going to pass the boat-people buck onto other countries to fix, and leave the building of National infrastructure like roads and and rail in the hands of private enterprise; then WHAT THE HELL DO WE NEED THEM FOR THEN?

Australia should have a refugee centre with a fair 90 day turn around with no appeals.  What is wrong with genuine people wanting to come to Australia for a new life?  

The 1951 Refugee Agreement is merely a voluntary signed article.

It has no legal standing, Australian law overrides it and it is not policed by any body.

France routinely ignores it and is a member of the Security Council!

There is nothing legally binding Australia to accept these losers.

International law = meaningless

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:06pm:

The 1951 Refugee Agreement is merely a voluntary signed article. It has no legal standing, Australian law overrides it and it is not policed by any body. France routinely ignores it and is a member of the Security Council! There is nothing legally binding Australia to accept these losers.

What a cop out, you have no idea.

oh dear what's going to happen to us if we violate the sacred refugee treaty :o :o :o

will we be sent to nation jail or something?

To sympathize with those who are less fortunate is honorable and decent. A man able to commiserate only with himself would surely be neither admirable nor attractive. But every virtue can become deformed by excess, insincerity, or loose thinking into an opposing vice. Sympathy, when excessive, moves toward sentimental condescension and eventually disdain; when insincere, it becomes unctuously hypocritical; and when associated with loose thinking, it is a bad guide to policy and frequently has disastrous results. It is possible, of course, to combine all three errors.
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_otbie-sympathy.html

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:08pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:06pm: The 1951 Refugee Agreement is merely a voluntary signed article. It has no legal standing, Australian law overrides it and it is not policed by any body. France routinely ignores it and is a member of the Security Council! There is nothing legally binding Australia to accept these losers. What a cop out, you have no idea.

So instead you would prefer we see boat upon boat of third world garbage turning up would you???

Quote:

But I think you'll find Australia loses a lot of respect from the rest of the world when they see what a red neck bunch of xenophobes we really are.

-skippy

I think that many would not care what the rest of the world thinks.
I think many have their own idealised concept of an Australia that is somehow independent of, and apart from, the rest of the world, and do not care how bigoted and racist other nations think we are.

The people that bang on about boats as being a crisis, usually fall into that category.

However, the rest of us that do care about our reputation abroad, and do feel that we need to act as part of a caring global community, are repulsed at the victimisation of these small numbers of desperate refugees that take that most dangerous journey in the hope of finding freedom and a better life.

The Labor party needs to take a long hard look at itself for giving legs to the vilification of boat people, in their desperate attempt to secure votes, it was a shameful thing for them to do.

Stopping people from wishing to come here is easy, Howard knew that, just make it a bad option.
How?
By making sure that those who try suffer.
Suffer long, and suffer hard.
He knew it, he did it, it worked, but when he was doing it the Labor party condemned it, but when they had to choose between risking votes, and doing the right thing, they chose to do the wrong thing, and mimic some of Howard's actions, and the vast swing to the Greens from Labor was in no small part due to this bad decision.

I don't care if Abbott would have been worse, there are some principles that even politicians should not be prepared to sacrifice for political advantage.

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:10pm:

oh dear what's going to happen to us if we violate the sacred refugee treaty :o :o :o will we be sent to nation jail or something?

NO, but the rest of the world will know once and for all that the Australian people are all like you, xenophobic red necks.
.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:13pm:

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:10pm: oh dear what's going to happen to us if we violate the sacred refugee treaty :o :o :o will we be sent to nation jail or something? NO, but the rest of the world will know once and for all that the Australian people are all like you, xenophobic red necks. .

Do you see France as xenophobic and redneck?

France routinely does not comply with this very UN Article and French law overrides who it allows in.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:15pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:13pm: aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:10pm: oh dear what's going to happen to us if we violate the sacred refugee treaty :o :o :o will we be sent to nation jail or something? NO, but the rest of the world will know once and for all that the Australian people are all like you, xenophobic red necks. . Do you see France as xenophobic and redneck? France routinely does not comply with this very UN Article and French law overrides who it allows in.

Yes ,I do see France as xenophobic, look at how they carry on about Muslims.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:16pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:15pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:13pm: aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:10pm: oh dear what's going to happen to us if we violate the sacred refugee treaty :o :o :o will we be sent to nation jail or something? NO, but the rest of the world will know once and for all that the Australian people are all like you, xenophobic red necks. . Do you see France as xenophobic and redneck? France routinely does not comply with this very UN Article and French law overrides who it allows in. Yes ,I do see France as xenophobic, look at how they carry on about Muslims.

You know nothing of their national issues then.

France, like Britain, has a considerable Muslim problem with which it is grappling.

I must have been bought up in a different country to you as I was always told to accept people for who they are, not the color of their skin or the religion that they practice.
If these boat people were whites fleeing South Africa you lot would have your welcome banners flying high and proud to welcome them.
How many of you whinged when all the jews came here after WW2?

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:13pm:

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:10pm: oh dear what's going to happen to us if we violate the sacred refugee treaty :o :o :o will we be sent to nation jail or something? NO, but the rest of the world will know once and for all that the Australian people are all like you, xenophobic red necks. .

I disagree that ALL who choose a lack of compassion and concern for fellow human beings are xenophobic rednecks, I think a lot are just poorly informed, or misinformed, and struggle to define the line between respecting and caring for your own country and culture, and becoming overly zealous in promoting that to a point where their actions become counter productive, and they actually hurt us by creating a view that we are all intolerant extremists.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:16pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:15pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:13pm: aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:10pm: oh dear what's going to happen to us if we violate the sacred refugee treaty :o :o :o will we be sent to nation jail or something? NO, but the rest of the world will know once and for all that the Australian people are all like you, xenophobic red necks. . Do you see France as xenophobic and redneck? France routinely does not comply with this very UN Article and French law overrides who it allows in. Yes ,I do see France as xenophobic, look at how they carry on about Muslims.

You are  whinetard skippy.  It obviously will come as a shock to you if you ever realise that countries need some guts, and standards to live by, to survive.  Take away courage and standards, and a country becomes a worthless hellhole, when the scum take over.

Quote:

NO, but the rest of the world will know once and for all that the Australian people are all like you, xenophobic red necks.

Who is judging? The Japanese? People in Singapore? Mexicans?

Pot, kettle, black. Who cares?

That will be because you were brought up in a different country to me.

But that's by the by.


I do not want people who can add no value to the country, who arrive with nothing, who are socially disruptive and who are culturally unsuitable to the fabric of the country.

These boat people fail in my book on all counts.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:20pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:13pm: aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:10pm: oh dear what's going to happen to us if we violate the sacred refugee treaty :o :o :o will we be sent to nation jail or something? NO, but the rest of the world will know once and for all that the Australian people are all like you, xenophobic red necks. . I disagree that ALL who choose a lack of compassion and concern for fellow human beings are xenophobic rednecks, I think a lot are just poorly informed, or misinformed, and struggle to define the line between respecting and caring for your own country and culture, and becoming overly zealous in promoting that to a point where their actions become counter productive, and they actually hurt us by creating a view that we are all intolerant extremists.

Grow a pair, or the intolerant extremists you grovel to will rule your children wirth an iron fist.

Quote:

France, like Britain, has a considerable Muslim problem with which it is grappling.

Its only a problem because they're Muslim, you really dont get it. you are so consumed by your hatred and xenophobe beliefs that reality just doesn't rate a mention.

The really amusing thing is I actually think we should let the boat people in (until it is safe for them to return home; citizenship status will be completely precluded) :o That treaty is a crock though.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:20pm:

How many of you whinged when all the jews came here after WW2?

Which is Exactly the reason the refugee charter was formed.
So countries could not close there borders as the did through the 1930's condeming millions of jews to death.
I don't know what the answer to the refugee problem is but if we look at it through the reason why we have a charter we may come to a reasonable answer.
We get alot of unskilled trash from NZ and I don't see protests in the streets.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:

That will be because you were brought up in a different country to me. But that's by the by. I do not want people who can add no value to the country, who arrive with nothing, who are socially disruptive and who are culturally unsuitable to the fabric of the country. These boat people fail in my book on all counts.

With a nick like yours that doesn't surprise me, I expect you left your former fascist led dictatorship but forgot to leave your fascist beliefs with it.

Quote:

Who cares?

Imp

Lots of aussies care Imp, and while I do not think it helps to label everyone with concerns about the makeup of our culture, and a wish to be able to have some planning input into the makeup of that culture as xenophobes and racists.

We do need to be as decent as we can be, as generous as we can be, and still be proud and protective of our secular traditions, and egalitarian culture, and to do that we need to be open minded without being driven by politically correct ideologies that would prove as counter productive as a xenophobic one would be.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:24pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:20pm: How many of you whinged when all the jews came here after WW2? Which is Exactly the reason the refugee charter was formed. So countries could not close there borders as the did through the 1930's condeming millions of jews to death. I don't know what the answer to the refugee problem is but if we look at it through the reason why we have a charter we may come to a reasonable answer. We get alot of unskilled trash from NZ and I don't see protests in the streets.

Australia has an open border on immigration with NZ.

I personally would like to see that closed too.

I have met several Asians who got into Australia via the back door of living in NZ first.

Australia should decide solely who it lets in.
It should not give a toss what the UN or anyone else thinks.

The UN has done nothing on Chinese human rights abuse, Zimbabwe's destructive abuse of white farmers and electoral rigging, Iran's electoral rigging, Rwandan massacres.

The UN? Bag of shyte.

Australia needs strong border control and that means without a visa - NOBODY comes in.
If you arrive without a visa, you're going straight back no question.

People who point out that Australians are hypocrites because they didn't complain about groups the Jews arriving here as refugees, or wouldn't complain if New Zealanders were the people showing up on our shores are completely missing the point or are just pretending they are. Of course we care more about groups like Jews or New Zealanders than the types who arrive on the boats now. Our compassion is portioned out in a concentric circle fashion with our own immediate family in the dead center, our extended family in ring outside of that, etc ad nauseum. The kind of people who constitute the "boat people" are in one of the far outer rings. People care more about certain people than other people; it's a fact of nature. :o

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:23pm:

Quote: France, like Britain, has a considerable Muslim problem with which it is grappling. Its only a problem because they're Muslim, you really dont get it. you are so consumed by your hatred and xenophobe beliefs that reality just doesn't rate a mention.

You`ll never work it out tip skip, not until they starve and abuse you, and kick your door down you low infidel.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:25pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:22pm: That will be because you were brought up in a different country to me. But that's by the by. I do not want people who can add no value to the country, who arrive with nothing, who are socially disruptive and who are culturally unsuitable to the fabric of the country. These boat people fail in my book on all counts. With a nick like yours that doesn't surprise me, I expect you left your former fascist led dictatorship but forgot to leave your fascist beliefs with it.

On the contrary my parents are from Great Britain and the Republic of South Africa.
Neither have ever had a fascist leader.

In fact both were fervently anti fascist and anti communist under Thatcher and Botha.

Strong border controls are not fascist, they are sensible.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:22pm:

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:20pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:13pm: aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:10pm: oh dear what's going to happen to us if we violate the sacred refugee treaty :o :o :o will we be sent to nation jail or something? NO, but the rest of the world will know once and for all that the Australian people are all like you, xenophobic red necks. . I disagree that ALL who choose a lack of compassion and concern for fellow human beings are xenophobic rednecks, I think a lot are just poorly informed, or misinformed, and struggle to define the line between respecting and caring for your own country and culture, and becoming overly zealous in promoting that to a point where their actions become counter productive, and they actually hurt us by creating a view that we are all intolerant extremists. Grow a pair, or the intolerant extremists you grovel to will rule your children wirth an iron fist.

And which intolerant extremist might that be aussie?
You? ;D ;D ;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:30pm:

skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:25pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:22pm: That will be because you were brought up in a different country to me. But that's by the by. I do not want people who can add no value to the country, who arrive with nothing, who are socially disruptive and who are culturally unsuitable to the fabric of the country. These boat people fail in my book on all counts. With a nick like yours that doesn't surprise me, I expect you left your former fascist led dictatorship but forgot to leave your fascist beliefs with it. On the contrary my parents are from Great Britain and the Republic of South Africa. Neither have ever had a fascist leader. In fact both were fervently anti fascist and anti communist under Thatcher and Botha. Strong border controls are not fascist, they are sensible.

Arrrrrrrrrr South Afica, say no more.

n

Quote:

Arrrrrrrrrr South Afica, say no more.

That wicked, white racist nation that for some reason had thousands of Africans attempting to illegally escape into it DURING apartheid ;D

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:22pm: mozzaok wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:20pm: skippy. wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:13pm: aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:10pm: oh dear what's going to happen to us if we violate the sacred refugee treaty :o :o :o will we be sent to nation jail or something? NO, but the rest of the world will know once and for all that the Australian people are all like you, xenophobic red necks. . I disagree that ALL who choose a lack of compassion and concern for fellow human beings are xenophobic rednecks, I think a lot are just poorly informed, or misinformed, and struggle to define the line between respecting and caring for your own country and culture, and becoming overly zealous in promoting that to a point where their actions become counter productive, and they actually hurt us by creating a view that we are all intolerant extremists. Grow a pair, or the intolerant extremists you grovel to will rule your children wirth an iron fist. And which intolerant extremist might that be aussie? You? ;D ;D ;D

In Britain we had a scenario where the head of the Finsbury Park Mosque, who declared Muslims should rise up and support Iraq and hated Britain - when Jordan asked for his extradition on terror charges he asked Britain to not send him because he faced execution.

This is the sort of rubbish we are used to putting up with now.

Parts of Britain dont even look like our country anymore, we may as well be in Baghdad.

It's a crying shame what we have allowed to happen.

It is not too late for Australia to lock the gate and keep this lot out.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:42pm:

Darwin wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 12:28pm: I repeat, what is so bad about a few boatloads of refugees arriving here to seek asylum? Well I throw it back to you - why should we accept them? Why? Here's why we shouldn't - 1) They arrive with no skills so can't contribute effectively to the tax pool. 2) They arrive with no assets. So WE the people have to pay for them from day 0 (provide housing, benefits etc) - bear in mind they have paid NOTHING towards all this. 3) They have just turned up on a boat expecting to be let in. Those who have come from Sri Lanka etc have by-passed numerous third countries and even set off from third countries to get here. 4) They are culturally unsuited to Australia. Hence with the violent African gangs and Somali ghettos arising - they have come from lawless countries and their teenage thugs are not used to law and order. In short the people are a nuisance, they are not wanted, they cost us money, they are socially destructive and they add nothing to the country. They are rubbish.

So, xenophobia and racism is why you want the boats stopped.

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:33pm:

Quote: Arrrrrrrrrr South Afica, say no more. That wicked, white racist nation that for some reason had thousands of Africans attempting to illegally escape into it DURING apartheid ;D

A nasty evil anti-black nation that had a higher living standard and education level for black people than any of it's 'free' neighbours....

Didn't Apartheid South Africa have more black millionaires than any other country in the world? I remember reading somewhere that there were more cars amongst Blacks there than there was cars in the entire Soviet Union.

South Africa is getting what it deserves now though. Just a few more years and the transformation will be complete.

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:36pm:

Didn't Apartheid South Africa have more black millionaires than any other country in the world? I remember reading somewhere that there were more cars amongst Blacks there than there was cars in the entire Soviet Union. South Africa is getting what it deserves now though. Just a few more years and the transformation will be complete.

South Africa is getting exactly what was always predicted to happen.

I mean we had the entire rest of the continent to see what happens when black majority rule occurs.

Debt, disease, internal war, corruption and poverty.

Black Africa in a nutshell.

They had no idea just how good they had it.

Think that rumor about how after Mandela passes away the slaughter is going to begin has any merit at all?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:42pm:

Darwin wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 12:28pm: I repeat, what is so bad about a few boatloads of refugees arriving here to seek asylum? Well I throw it back to you - why should we accept them? Why? Here's why we shouldn't - 1) They arrive with no skills so can't contribute effectively to the tax pool. 2) They arrive with no assets. So WE the people have to pay for them from day 0 (provide housing, benefits etc) - bear in mind they have paid NOTHING towards all this. 3) They have just turned up on a boat expecting to be let in. Those who have come from Sri Lanka etc have by-passed numerous third countries and even set off from third countries to get here. 4) They are culturally unsuited to Australia. Hence with the violent African gangs and Somali ghettos arising - they have come from lawless countries and their teenage thugs are not used to law and order. In short the people are a nuisance, they are not wanted, they cost us money, they are socially destructive and they add nothing to the country. They are rubbish.

Settle down andrei, who else is going to bring back the trolleys from the carpark into Coles & Woolies.
Get real, someone has to be in the trolley posse.
You don't really expect 'us' to do it do you?
Australia has a great need for these uneducated untrained unskilled non English speaking spear sharpeners & goat herders to help us get over this nations chronic skills shortage that we have.

Sth Africa refused to change, until change was forced upon them.
If they had acted more compassionately, far earlier, as a personal moral choice made by it's people, rather than resisting all the influences from within and outside it's country, it would be a very, very different place today.
If you push people to the point where revolution seems a viable option, then you have already lost.

http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/06/08b--ditchdigger.jpg

Jobs Australians won't do, I guess. ::)

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:44pm:

Sth Africa refused to change, until change was forced upon them. If they had acted more compassionately, far earlier, as a personal moral choice made by it's people, rather than resisting all the influences from within and outside it's country, it would be a very, very different place today. If you push people to the point where revolution seems a viable option, then you have already lost.

And how about the every other country in Sub-Saharan Africa under black rule?
All of them are basket cases, every last one of them.
Any answer for those too????

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:44pm:

Sth Africa refused to change, until change was forced upon them. If they had acted more compassionately, far earlier, as a personal moral choice made by it's people, rather than resisting all the influences from within and outside it's country, it would be a very, very different place today. If you push people to the point where revolution seems a viable option, then you have already lost.

The reason South Africa refused to change under international pressure because they predicted what is happening there would happen. Black majority rule was resisted because it was expected that it would be disasterous for the entire population; blacks and whites alike, but especially whites. It has been and things are getting worse.

It amazes me that the pious democratic world, only ten or so years *after* the dismantling of their own segregation programs, had the effrontery to look down on South Africa as they did. It reminds me of that old slogan that was used in Colonial America that the further away people lived from the Sioux and the Apache the more people sympathized with them. South Africa's unique geographical and demographic situation instilled in the whites there their hard-edged, no-nonsense approach to running their country. They were probably right, though many of the cruelties of the Apartheid regime cannot simply be excused.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtKKJSfYraU&feature=fvst

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:52pm:

culldav wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 12:51pm: I have said many times that I am against asylum seekers being housed in motels, hotels, caravan parks and other places after they are released from detention and awaiting Public Housing. Meanwhile other homeless Australians have to live garages, parks, alley-ways, and under bridges. The thing is; this situation is not the fault of the refugees, its the fault of our Governments by not being competent enough is knowing how to spend the Australian's tax dollars. If pollies gave up part of their lurks 'n' perks and "junkets" then Australia would have enough money to build permanent accommodation for everyone. would you stop it now? I hate agreeing with you.

I'll go along with that.

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:41pm:

Think that rumor about how after Mandela passes away the slaughter is going to begin has any merit at all?

Not necessarily - Mandela is probably the one guy from the Xhosa bantu area background who holds some sway with the Zulus, but the disputes internally transcend even his ability to calm it.

There are still over 12 murders every night in Jo'burg which are internal black-black murders. Often some are mere robbery etc but Zulus-Xhosa's are an issue that wont go away.

Under the old apartheid system they were defined differently under the Bantu category so they've never been treated the same anyway.

Zulus hate the ANC with a passion.

Yeah, I've heard that the ANC is also seriously out of touch there with even the blacks. Didn't they make gay marriage legal in South Africa? Like that's going to go down well with blacks. In some districts a lot of black people are now voting in whites, I think. Could be wrong about though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4f0INWfws0

Abbott can't stop the boats. Unless he wants to do what Howard did and turn these unfortunate people back, sending them back to potential death, not that the conservatives of this country care about those less fortunate.

Quote:

though many of the cruelties of the Apartheid regime cannot simply be excused.

Imp

That is right Imp, and the fact that they were is largely what caused the problem in the first place.

You seem to be arguing that if black sth africans had been treated fairly and compassionately, they would have simply reverted to type as murderous black demons.
I know you believe that people have genetic dispositions towards violent behaviour along cultural lines, but I do not agree with that contention.

Historically Africa has been a very violent place, as has most of the world.
With the advancement of civilisation, we saw western europe develop into a more orderly society, but that did not happen over night, it happened over centuries.
Even with our advanced secular democracies, the west still has the capability of creating bloody mayhem in the world from time to time, so to claim the moral highground in relation to violent behaviour, for the white, western races, along genetic grounds, may be just a bit presumptuous.

aikmann4 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:53pm:

Yeah, I've heard that the ANC is also seriously out of touch there with even the blacks. Didn't they make gay marriage legal in South Africa? Like that's going to go down well with blacks. In some districts a lot of black people are now voting in whites, I think. Could be wrong about though.

"I do not believe South Africa is suffering from any HIV crisis, to suggest it is simply is lies"
President Thabo Mbeki.

Incidentally which regime continually allows Robert Mugabe to wash his money through the banking system, invites him to the country and treats him as an "African hero"?
South Africa under the ANC.

The ANC have made their own bed, they can lie in it.
In the post Apartheid elections they ran with the campaign, vote for us and you can have everything the white people have.

The cleaners and gardeners who worked in my grandparents house in the Transvaal all are now working for much less than they earned back in the 1980s once you adjust for cost of living.

The ANC promised everything and delivered nothing.

The Zulus dont feel let down, they never supported them in the first place.

In fact through history the Zulus have been the most accommodating to non-blacks and hence enjoyed much better freedoms under Vorster, Malan, Verwoerd and Botha.

Quote:

You seem to be arguing that if black sth africans had been treated fairly and compassionately, they would have simply reverted to type as murderous black demons.

What would you define here as to be treated "compassionately"? Many of things done to Black africans during Apartheid were wrong, but others were simply precautionary measures. Pass laws for instance -- not necessarily very pleasant for individuals, but on a group level (from the perspective of whites, and even some blacks), probably fairly sensible. Keeping Africans disenfranchised was a good move as well; their enfranchisement has only led to the current situation.


Quote:

I know you believe that people have genetic dispositions towards violent behaviour along cultural lines, but I do not agree with that contention.

Mozzaok, it does not necessarily matter whether individuals have genetic predispostions towards violence or not. It is not not a necessary condition for white South Africans to have taken the precautionary measures that they did. Treating them differently  only would have made sense **if** the causes of their violent tendencies were directly as a result of the treatment metered out by Apartheid in the first place. I think most of the evidence is inconsistent or does not fit into this explanation so the precautionary measures taken by the white South Africans, while unpleasant, and at many times went far too far, were probably the most sensible course of action. I am not saying that because Group X is more violent/etc on average than Group Y because of genetic reasons (though I do think this) therefore many of the legislative measures taken by Apartheid were justified; I'm saying that the disparties in these negative behaviors between groups, which certainly and undeniably do exist, could probably not be reasonably ascribed to Apartheid itself, and therefore the White South Africans were likely judicious in their actions.


Quote:

Historically Africa has been a very violent place, as has most of the world.

Even in an historical context, I don't think that most of the world has ever really been as violent as Africa.  Though civilization and the environment do in fact, and you are quite right to point out so, have passifying effects; whether or not they can ever *truly* remove disparities between certain groups, on certain behaviors, remains to be seen. The only African nations that exist that are nothing like the rest are tiny Caribbean nations that have unique demographic, economic and historical conditions that have given rise to them in the first place.

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:59pm:

Quote: though many of the cruelties of the Apartheid regime cannot simply be excused. Historically Africa has been a very violent place, as has most of the world. With the advancement of civilisation, we saw western europe develop into a more orderly society, but that did not happen over night, it happened over centuries. Even with our advanced secular democracies, the west still has the capability of creating bloody mayhem in the world from time to time, so to claim the moral highground in relation to violent behaviour, for the white, western races, along genetic grounds, may be just a bit presumptuous.

Just to play devils advocate :D
Africa is the cradle of civillization, whilst Europeans were huddled in caves spit drawing the Egyptians had advanced maths & astrology, surgery & libraries not to mention the pyramids
The earliest human remains are found in Africa around Rwanda.
So Moz how is it whites of Europe formed a civilized society & overcame the tribal bloodshed when Africian's had close to 1000 years more than them to achieve this?

The "cradle of civilization" was Mesopotamia and the Indus valley, not Africa. Let's not try to confuse the geographic descriptor for African with its other descriptor. The Egyptians were not "Africans" in the sense that we are using here (as much as Afrocentric liars would like them to have been), though they did exist in Africa.

Civilisation is not a time based linear process, Smithy, which I am sure you appreciate, it is a lot to do with interacting with other cultures, mixing, and learning from each other. Where would we be today without the Egyptians, the ancient Greeks, Romans, Assyrians, Chinese, Indians, etc.etc. in fact we probably should go back to jolly old Ur and the birthplace of civilisation, and thank them.
We did?
How?
Oh! We dropped bombs on them, and invaded their country, oops, sorry 'bout that.

I suppose the good news is we can just leave the monoculturalists to themselves, and just wait as we outstrip them culturally and technically ?lol

Quote:

In fact through history the Zulus have been the most accommodating to non-blacks and hence enjoyed much better freedoms under Vorster, Malan, Verwoerd and Botha.

That's very interesting; I didn't know that about the Zulu. I would have thought, being that the Zulu are a formidable warrior people, they would have been *more* volatile than the rest of the Africans in the Cape, not less. I'm infinitely impressed by the bravery (perhaps temerity) and indomitable spirit of the Zulu impis; despite vast and obvious technological and economic disadvantages, they almost managed to bring the world's foremost hyperpower to its knees.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:23pm:

mozzaok wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:59pm: Quote: though many of the cruelties of the Apartheid regime cannot simply be excused. Historically Africa has been a very violent place, as has most of the world. With the advancement of civilisation, we saw western europe develop into a more orderly society, but that did not happen over night, it happened over centuries. Even with our advanced secular democracies, the west still has the capability of creating bloody mayhem in the world from time to time, so to claim the moral highground in relation to violent behaviour, for the white, western races, along genetic grounds, may be just a bit presumptuous. Just to play devils advocate :D Africa is the cradle of civillization, whilst Europeans were huddled in caves spit drawing the Egyptians had advanced maths & astrology, surgery & libraries not to mention the pyramids The earliest human remains are found in Africa around Rwanda. So Moz how is it whites of Europe formed a civilized society & overcame the tribal bloodshed when Africian's had close to 1000 years more than them to achieve this?

No dsmithy, Africa is the cradle of the Human Species.....

The Tigris/ Euphrates Basin is the Cradle of Civilization.....Mesopotamia, Babylon, etc....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 2:53pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 2:23pm: mozzaok wrote on Aug 24th, 2010 at 1:59pm: Quote: though many of the cruelties of the Apartheid regime cannot simply be excused. Historically Africa has been a very violent place, as has most of the world. With the advancement of civilisation, we saw western europe develop into a more orderly society, but that did not happen over night, it happened over centuries. Even with our advanced secular democracies, the west still has the capability of creating bloody mayhem in the world from time to time, so to claim the moral highground in relation to violent behaviour, for the white, western races, along genetic grounds, may be just a bit presumptuous. Just to play devils advocate :D Africa is the cradle of civillization, whilst Europeans were huddled in caves spit drawing the Egyptians had advanced maths & astrology, surgery & libraries not to mention the pyramids The earliest human remains are found in Africa around Rwanda. So Moz how is it whites of Europe formed a civilized society & overcame the tribal bloodshed when Africian's had close to 1000 years more than them to achieve this? No dsmithy, Africa is the cradle of the Human Species..... The Tigris/ Euphrates Basin is the Cradle of Civilization.....Mesopotamia, Babylon, etc....

I stand corrected you,Imp & Moz are right I got my species & civilizations crossed :(

A few more boat people, big deal, many more come by plane and the rest of the world have much larger influxes of asylum seekers than we do.
Boat people are just being treated as political footballs and are no threat to this county and are well down the list when it comes to important issues that effect our day to day lives.
Try jumping up and down every time an international flight lands in Australia because many more asylum seekers come that way.
If you want to stop asylum seekers then you need to cure  famine, stop rape and torture and stop all the wars and corruption in the world..because only then will you stop desperate people feeling from their homelands.

Another "open our borders" maniac  ::)

I find it hard to believe that anyone would find the arrival of few thousand boat people asylum seekers a year a major priority.
Its a drop in the bucket when it comes to asylum seeker arrivals to this country and a tiny speck when it comes to the world wide movement of asylum seekers.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 6:34pm:

I find it hard to believe that anyone would find the arrival of few thousand boat people asylum seekers a year a major priority.

Yet they do.
People hate free loaders, people hate people who come here and take from the system having paid in zero.

If it weren't an issue it wouldn't have got the airtime and both major parties scrambling to battle the issue.

It was an issue because people do have it as a priority.

We simply don't want third world garbage coming here and taking funds which we can allocate to real Australian people who have paid into the country.

That is fact. People care.
Rightfully so.

Andrei, some people can`t grasp the concept of right and wrong.

adelcrow wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 6:16pm:

If you want to stop asylum seekers then you need to cure  famine, stop rape and torture and stop all the wars and corruption in the world..because only then will you stop desperate people feeling from their homelands.

You mean the west should re-colonise the third world and resume civilising them? I actually agree with that.

I don't. Because if it fails then we'll be back to square one. The liberal complainers will accuse us all over again of causing all the problems there and it'll be a further impetus for more immigration from there. Just leave Africans alone and let them sort their own problems out. That's their business, not ours.

A lot of the colonies were net drains anyway in that they cost more money than they actually brought in. It's why Bismarck was reluctant to create an overseas empire.

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

I must have been bought up in a different country to you as I was always told to accept people for who they are

skippy. wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:31pm:

Arrrrrrrrrr South Afica, say no more.

Oh the irony

Tell me, those who support the illegal people smugglers, what would you say to the person who hasn't got the loot to give to the people smugglers and is destined to stay in the hell of a refugee camp each time a queue jumper hands over his cash to the criminal gangs who organise people smuggling?

What words do you use to explain that they aren't that important to you as you prefer to take those who have shouldered them aside?

adelcrow wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 6:34pm:

I find it hard to believe that anyone would find the arrival of few thousand boat people asylum seekers a year a major priority. Its a drop in the bucket when it comes to asylum seeker arrivals to this country and a tiny speck when it comes to the world wide movement of asylum seekers.

I think you will find the priority is about stopping foreign criminal gangs from smuggling people.
Even John Howards government took in 13,000 migrants and asylum seekers in the year he put the smugglers out of business.
Whether you like it or not, whether it's smuggling drugs, sex slaves or economic refugees, it doesn't matter.
All three are illegal in most nations in the world.

Labor has always been about propping up dodgy antics. I wouldn't be surprised if they were getting kickbacks from the smugglers