Not only is Gillard caving in to illegal immigrants and people smugglers, she is now rolling out the welcome mat and encouraging them to come and stay in the homes of Australian families!!! If you thought we'd seen a lot of boats previously, wait until they get news of this in Indonesia. This woman and her incompetent govt has GOT to go. You don't make it easier or encourage them she's supposed to be making it harder for them!

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/aussies-asked-to-take-in-asylum-seekers-and-be-paid-for-it/story-e6freuzr-1226345201172

Heard a caller on talkback radio this morning outline how easy it would be to rort this system. He said that he currently boards about 6 or 7 students for about $350 or so a week and that once their rent runs out, he can take on these illegal immigrants and be paid $300 or so a week and pocket about $1800 per week instead. Clearly this ridiculous idea has not been thought through by this incompetent government.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 6:30am:

Not only is Gillard caving in to illegal immigrants ...

Can you give an example?

I've seen absolutely no evidence of your claim.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 6:30am:

Not only is Gillard caving in to illegal immigrants ... http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/aussies-asked-to-take-in-asylum-seekers-and-be-paid-for-it/story-e6freuzr-1226345201172

The story in the link you provided is about legal asylum seekers.

Where are the "illegal immigrants" you mentioned?

Or, could it be that you don't know the difference between illegal immigrants and asylum seekers?  No, that's impossible: nobody is that ignorant.

In that case, where are the illegal immigrants you talk of and how is Julia  "caving in" to them?

The labor party are that bad at policy that this particular policy area is overloaded with people, that they dont have places left for them to stay. So labor ask Australian people to house them due to not wanting over crowding.

What a failure this government is.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Heard a caller on talkback radio this morning outline how easy it would be to rort this system. He said that he currently boards about 6 or 7 students for about $350 or so a week and that once their rent runs out, he can take on these illegal immigrants and be paid $300 or so a week and pocket about $1800 per week instead. Clearly this ridiculous idea has not been thought through by this incompetent government.

Ahhhhhhh, that explains it!

You listen to talk back radio.  Probably watch the Bolt Report too.

That explains why you don't know the difference between illegal immigrants and asylum seekers.

Just to let you know, this scheme will not see anybody paid to house illegal immigrants: it's for legal asylum seekers.  You can relax.

Do you find it exciting to rehash the "asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants" lame semantics game a dozen times a day? 

You do realise it's not an argument in itself, don't you?  I think you do realise this, but at least this way, the fact you don't have the stones to even contribute an opinion on an anonymous internet forum doesn't matter.

The idiocy of the Gillard govt knows no bounds!




...and she still got voted in over Tony.

... wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:43pm:

Do you find it exciting to rehash the "asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants" lame semantics game a dozen times a day?  You do realise it's not an argument in itself, don't you?  I think you do realise this, but at least this way, the fact you don't have the stones to even contribute an opinion on an anonymous internet forum doesn't matter.

Agreed. the semantic difference is trivial. Boat people are considered 'illegals' by the vast majority of Australians by the common definitions they employ in every day life. If you come to my house without my permission you are illegal - a criminal. Come to my country without permission... same response. It is what it is no matter what anyone says.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:48pm:

The idiocy of the Gillard govt knows no bounds! ...and she still got voted in over Tony.

Debatable at best. But what is not debatable is that it took about 2 months for the people to regret letting her take the reins.

Can I ask what you people would do if Australia, America, England etc. Were to become uninhabitable for some reason?

Would you expect other nations to help you, give you shelter, food and water?

Or would you expect them to let you die?

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:56pm:

Can I ask what you people would do if Australia, America, England etc. Were to become uninhabitable for some reason? Would you expect other nations to help you, give you shelter, food and water? Or would you expect them to let you die?

Way to go for making a thoroughly ridiculous parallel. The source countries arent uninhabitable.

Try again. This time try a parallel that is actually of value.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:04pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 3:56pm: Can I ask what you people would do if Australia, America, England etc. Were to become uninhabitable for some reason? Would you expect other nations to help you, give you shelter, food and water? Or would you expect them to let you die? Way to go for making a thoroughly ridiculous parallel. The source countries arent uninhabitable. Try again. This time try a parallel that is actually of value.

So in other words you would expect them to help you?
Clearly if people are fleeing for their lives that area is uninhabitable unless of course habitable means an environment that will kill you.

All people found to be in this country illegally are put in detention and then sent home.
No illegal immigrants will be housed in the community.....they never have and never will be.
Its no wonder Australians have a reputation worldwide of being arrogant racists with this sort of crap being spread around by the opposition and hate mongering shock jocks.

Im sick of sticking up for Australians when Im overseas..from now on Im just going to stick with the majority of the worlds population and agree that most Aussies are racist redneck scum.

... wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:43pm:

Do you find it exciting to rehash the "asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants" lame semantics game a dozen times a day?  You do realise it's not an argument in itself, don't you?  I think you do realise this, but at least this way, the fact you don't have the stones to even contribute an opinion on an anonymous internet forum doesn't matter.

It's not a semantics game, or an argument: it's pure, undeniable fact.

Anyone with a basic education understands that.

Furthermore, anyone who insists on calling legal asylum seekers "illegal immigrants" is totally destroying their own credibility.

I will continue to bring this to every-one's attention as many times in a day that is possible, as ignorance is one of the main problems in this debate.

If you don't like facts, I couldn't care less.  Sorry.

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:55pm:

Agreed. the semantic difference is trivial. Boat people are considered 'illegals' by the vast majority of Australians by the common definitions they employ in every day life. If you come to my house without my permission you are illegal - a criminal. Come to my country without permission... same response. It is what it is no matter what anyone says.

Asylum seekers, on boats, are not illegal immigrants.

Their arrival is unauthorised, not illegal.  Furthermore, even if they did arrive illegally (e.g. stole a boat) it still wouldn't make them illegal immigrants. 
The mode of transport (or how they acquire it) plays no part in the process of granting refugee status.

Anyone with a basic education understands these simple facts.

No semantics, no games, no need for an argument: just facts.

adelcrow wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:14pm:

All people found to be in this country illegally are put in detention and then sent home.

Yep.  No semantics, just a fact.


adelcrow wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:14pm:

No illegal immigrants will be housed in the community.....they never have and never will be.

Yep.  No semantics, just a fact.


adelcrow wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:14pm:

Its no wonder Australians have a reputation worldwide of being arrogant racists with this sort of crap being spread around by the opposition and hate mongering shock jocks.

Yep.  Arrogant and ignorant racists.  The ignorance is, quite frankly, astounding.  Some of these people actually believe that illegal immigrants and asylum seekers are the same thing.  Frightening what our education system is producing.

Oh, and I love the "argument" they use that goes along the lines of "if they pay people smugglers they are illegal immigrants;  People smuggling is illegal".  LOL  That one always cracks me up.

By that "reasoning" if someone was to steal a car and drive to the local council to pay their dog licence fee, they'd be "illegal dog owners".  LOL   

Transportation - Immigration
Two different issues.  Try not to get confused.    ;)

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:23pm:

... wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 3:43pm: Do you find it exciting to rehash the "asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants" lame semantics game a dozen times a day?  You do realise it's not an argument in itself, don't you?  I think you do realise this, but at least this way, the fact you don't have the stones to even contribute an opinion on an anonymous internet forum doesn't matter. It's not a semantics game, or an argument: it's pure, undeniable fact. Anyone with a basic education understands that. Furthermore, anyone who insists on calling legal asylum seekers "illegal immigrants" is totally destroying their own credibility. I will continue to bring this to every-one's attention as many times in a day that is possible, as ignorance is one of the main problems in this debate. If you don't like facts, I couldn't care less.  Sorry.

Couldn't you just put it in your signature?  It's in every post you make anyway, so at least that way it would save you the trouble of typing it out time after time after time after time after time.............

... wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Couldn't you just put it in your signature?  It's in every post you make anyway, so at least that way it would save you the trouble of typing it out time after time after time after time after time.............

If it annoys you then you'd do better to mewl at the idiots who come out with the ignorant BS rather than the person pointing out their ignorant BS.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:48pm:

The idiocy of the Gillard govt knows no bounds! ...and she still got voted in over Tony.

Actually, she didn't get voted in by the people. She did not have the numbers required to form a government in her own right. She had to make a deal with the devil: a.k.a. Bob Brown before she could be PM.

... wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 4:23pm: ... wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 3:43pm: Do you find it exciting to rehash the "asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants" lame semantics game a dozen times a day?  You do realise it's not an argument in itself, don't you?  I think you do realise this, but at least this way, the fact you don't have the stones to even contribute an opinion on an anonymous internet forum doesn't matter. It's not a semantics game, or an argument: it's pure, undeniable fact. Anyone with a basic education understands that. Furthermore, anyone who insists on calling legal asylum seekers "illegal immigrants" is totally destroying their own credibility. I will continue to bring this to every-one's attention as many times in a day that is possible, as ignorance is one of the main problems in this debate. If you don't like facts, I couldn't care less.  Sorry. Couldn't you just put it in your signature?  It's in every post you make anyway, so at least that way it would save you the trouble of typing it out time after time after time after time after time.............

I don't like signatures.

Plus, I enjoy the typing practice.

Did I mention, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants?  I think I did.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:27pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 3:55pm: Agreed. the semantic difference is trivial. Boat people are considered 'illegals' by the vast majority of Australians by the common definitions they employ in every day life. If you come to my house without my permission you are illegal - a criminal. Come to my country without permission... same response. It is what it is no matter what anyone says. Asylum seekers, on boats, are not illegal immigrants. Their arrival is unauthorised, not illegal.  Furthermore, even if they did arrive illegally (e.g. stole a boat) it still wouldn't make them illegal immigrants.  The mode of transport (or how they acquire it) plays no part in the process of granting refugee status. Anyone with a basic education understands these simple facts. No semantics, no games, no need for an argument: just facts.

You can call these people whatever you like, but at the end of the day, Labor has completely lost control of our borders whereas the previous Coalition government had things well and truly under control.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:54pm:

You can call these people whatever you like, but at the end of the day, Labor has completely lost control of our borders whereas the previous Coalition government had things well and truly under control.

No they didn't. Do you want me to pull out the charts AGAIN??? You know you won't understand them y'know. Not even on the fourth explaining. So just take if for granted - they didn't.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:54pm:

You can call these people whatever you like, but at the end of the day, Labor has completely lost control of our borders whereas the previous Coalition government had things well and truly under control.

Well, I'll call them legal asylum seekers: that's exactly what they are.

So, what is it that you fear from these asylum seekers?

What do you think needs to be "under control"? 

Are you against immigration?

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:01pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 4:54pm: You can call these people whatever you like, but at the end of the day, Labor has completely lost control of our borders whereas the previous Coalition government had things well and truly under control. Well, I'll call them legal asylum seekers: that's exactly what they are. So, what is it that you fear from these asylum seekers? What do you think needs to be "under control"?  Are you against immigration?

These people destroy their identity documents prior to being intercepted by our Navy. We have, in many cases, no way of positively identifying these people. The men, in particular, are of concern - they could quite possibly be Taliban militants. These are the people Gillard wants to have living among us while their applications are assessed and identities are attempted to be verified. If you cannot see the potential danger in this, you are blind.

For the record, I am FOR immigration - but it must be CONTROLLED immigration. We must have the right to decide who stays here.

17,000 asylum seekers fleeing persecution and terrorism in 5 yrs and 55,000 kiwis fleeing an economy shot to pieces by their conservative govt in just one year..
Big friggin whoop

adelcrow wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:07pm:

17,000 asylum seekers fleeing persecution and terrorism in 5 yrs and 55,000 kiwis fleeing an economy shot to pieces by their conservative govt in just one year.. Big friggin whoop

Statements like that only serve to underline the reasons why you are roundly ignored and nothing you say taken seriously.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:07pm:

For the record, I am FOR immigration - but it must be CONTROLLED immigration. We must have the right to decide who stays here.

I'm with you 100%.

If any of the asylum seekers are found not to be genuine refugees, they should be sent home.  And they are (the majority are granted refugee status though).

Asylum seekers are locked up in mandatory detention while their claims are processed.  If their stories don't check out, they're sent home.  That sounds like controlled immigration to me.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:07pm:

The men, in particular, are of concern - they could quite possibly be Taliban militants.

Taliban militants risking their lives on leaky boats in order to get to Australia and be detained so that they can ... ?    :-/

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:17pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:07pm: The men, in particular, are of concern - they could quite possibly be Taliban militants. Taliban militants risking their lives on leaky boats in order to get to Australia and be detained so that they can ... ?    :-/

I know what he means..Saddam Hussein's bodyguard managed to escape US soldiers in Iraq and make it to Australia as a refugee and married an ex Liberal Party pollie in South Australia...hypocrites   ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:52pm:

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 3:48pm: The idiocy of the Gillard govt knows no bounds! ...and she still got voted in over Tony. Actually, she didn't get voted in by the people. She did not have the numbers required to form a government in her own right. She had to make a deal with the devil: a.k.a. Bob Brown before she could be PM.

If Tnoy had formed government it would have been the most legitimate result in history.

Dnarever wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 8:39pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 4:52pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 3:48pm: The idiocy of the Gillard govt knows no bounds! ...and she still got voted in over Tony. Actually, she didn't get voted in by the people. She did not have the numbers required to form a government in her own right. She had to make a deal with the devil: a.k.a. Bob Brown before she could be PM. If Tnoy had formed government it would have been the most legitimate result in history.

That would all depend on if he did a Gillard and said 'I will introduce a carbon tax even though I said I wouldn't. I just need to, to gain power'

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 9:05pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 8:39pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 4:52pm: Ex Dame Pansi wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 3:48pm: The idiocy of the Gillard govt knows no bounds! ...and she still got voted in over Tony. Actually, she didn't get voted in by the people. She did not have the numbers required to form a government in her own right. She had to make a deal with the devil: a.k.a. Bob Brown before she could be PM. If Tnoy had formed government it would have been the most legitimate result in history. That would all depend on if he did a Gillard and said 'I will introduce a carbon tax even though I said I wouldn't. I just need to, to gain power'

Tony has to wait for Clive Palmer to tell him what promises to make  ;D

The most interesting thing about the result of the last election was nearly all the Independants have said that Abbott told them he would do anything to become PM.

I wonder if that includes a Carbon Tax.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:15pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:07pm: For the record, I am FOR immigration - but it must be CONTROLLED immigration. We must have the right to decide who stays here. I'm with you 100%. If any of the asylum seekers are found not to be genuine refugees, they should be sent home.  And they are (the majority are granted refugee status though). Asylum seekers are locked up in mandatory detention while their claims are processed.  If their stories don't check out, they're sent home.  That sounds like controlled immigration to me.

What this imbecile Gillard is proposing is about as UN-controlled as immigration can get.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:01pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:15pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:07pm: For the record, I am FOR immigration - but it must be CONTROLLED immigration. We must have the right to decide who stays here. I'm with you 100%. If any of the asylum seekers are found not to be genuine refugees, they should be sent home.  And they are (the majority are granted refugee status though). Asylum seekers are locked up in mandatory detention while their claims are processed.  If their stories don't check out, they're sent home.  That sounds like controlled immigration to me. What this imbecile Gillard is proposing is about as UN-controlled as immigration can get.

Care to elaborate?

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:03pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:15pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:07pm: For the record, I am FOR immigration - but it must be CONTROLLED immigration. We must have the right to decide who stays here. I'm with you 100%. If any of the asylum seekers are found not to be genuine refugees, they should be sent home.  And they are (the majority are granted refugee status though). Asylum seekers are locked up in mandatory detention while their claims are processed.  If their stories don't check out, they're sent home.  That sounds like controlled immigration to me. What this imbecile Gillard is proposing is about as UN-controlled as immigration can get. Care to elaborate?

Housing illegal immigrants in the community is simply ludicrous and a threat to national security. At least with overstaying people who come via airlines, we know who they are (due to having their passport and visa info at their point of entry) and can deal with them relatively easily in the knowledge they are not murderers, etc because they wouldn't have been allowed entry otherwise. Not the same with illegal immigrants arriving by boat with no identifying documentation to prove they are who they say they are. I admit that it is unlikely that there will be Taliban among the people on these boats, but that does not mean we close our eyes and hope for the best.

Is that simple enough for you?

Lets see how many people die, get ripped off, children raped by this labor policy.

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:18pm:

Lets see how many people die, get ripped off, children raped by this labor policy.

Hands up if you want unidentified adult men from Afghanistan living in your house with no way of knowing if they are genuine refugees or criminals who have fled the country or even Taliban fighters??? Hmmm, no one? I didn't think so!!!

Lets see how many of the looney left and greens take up this offer.

Come on greenslime, roopoo, gist, crow, mozzak, meathead, PP, kat, Sarah Hanson Young and her mob, karnal, pansi, buzz, philperth etc.

Nope. No hands in the air.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:17pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:03pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:15pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:07pm: For the record, I am FOR immigration - but it must be CONTROLLED immigration. We must have the right to decide who stays here. I'm with you 100%. If any of the asylum seekers are found not to be genuine refugees, they should be sent home.  And they are (the majority are granted refugee status though). Asylum seekers are locked up in mandatory detention while their claims are processed.  If their stories don't check out, they're sent home.  That sounds like controlled immigration to me. What this imbecile Gillard is proposing is about as UN-controlled as immigration can get. Care to elaborate? Housing illegal immigrants in the community is simply ludicrous and a threat to national security.

Yes, I agree.

However, nobody is suggesting that illegal immigrants should be housed in the community.

Not sure where you're getting that information from.

This is about a scheme to "host asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas."

Asylum seekers with bridging visas are not illegal immigrants.

So, what exactly are you talking about?  Can you provide something to support your claim?

blackadder wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:24pm:

Lets see how many of the looney left and greens take up this offer. Come on greenslime, roopoo, gist, crow, mozzak, meathead, PP, kat, Sarah Hanson Young and her mob, karna, pansil etc. Nope. No hands in the air.

Haven't heard Bob Brown offer to put up any of these illegal immigrants at his pad.

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:18pm:

Lets see how many people die, get ripped off, children raped by this labor policy.

Are you seriously suggesting that these Australian hosts will rape the asylum seekers?

What a sad little "man" you are.

::)

Do you take these people with you everywhere you go or do you leave them home alone. Do you go to the local op shop to see if your posession have been sold.

Do you put an alarm in your childs bedroom at night while you sleep. Do you lock up your daughters from men who think marrying a 10 year old is normal.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:26pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:17pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:03pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:15pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:07pm: For the record, I am FOR immigration - but it must be CONTROLLED immigration. We must have the right to decide who stays here. I'm with you 100%. If any of the asylum seekers are found not to be genuine refugees, they should be sent home.  And they are (the majority are granted refugee status though). Asylum seekers are locked up in mandatory detention while their claims are processed.  If their stories don't check out, they're sent home.  That sounds like controlled immigration to me. What this imbecile Gillard is proposing is about as UN-controlled as immigration can get. Care to elaborate? Housing illegal immigrants in the community is simply ludicrous and a threat to national security. Yes, I agree. However, nobody is suggesting that illegal immigrants should be housed in the community. Not sure where you're getting that information from. This is about a scheme to "host asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas." Asylum seekers with bridging visas are not illegal immigrants. So, what exactly are you talking about?  Can you provide something to support your claim?

Ummm, are you really THAT dumb? They won't be held in detention, so where else do you think they'll be living? Perhaps at the local McDonalds???

"Under a plan slated to start next month, the government will seek to access the 5000 homes registered under the privately run Australian Homestay Network (AHN) to host asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas.

AHN was originally established to provide short-term private home accommodation and board for international students."

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:27pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:18pm: Lets see how many people die, get ripped off, children raped by this labor policy. Are you seriously suggesting that these Australian hosts will rape the asylum seekers? What a sad little "man" you are. ::)

You sad little boy. They are just single men they are going to offer to live in your home, not children. I cant be so sure your lefty gay mates would not though.

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:31pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:18pm: Lets see how many people die, get ripped off, children raped by this labor policy. Are you seriously suggesting that these Australian hosts will rape the asylum seekers? What a sad little "man" you are. ::) You sad little boy. They are just single men they are going to offer to live in your home, not children. I cant be so sure your lefty gay mates would not though.

Still waiting to hear from Bob Brown, champion of illegal immigrants, and whether he will take in any of thse Afghan men...

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:29pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:26pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:17pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:03pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:15pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:07pm: For the record, I am FOR immigration - but it must be CONTROLLED immigration. We must have the right to decide who stays here. I'm with you 100%. If any of the asylum seekers are found not to be genuine refugees, they should be sent home.  And they are (the majority are granted refugee status though). Asylum seekers are locked up in mandatory detention while their claims are processed.  If their stories don't check out, they're sent home.  That sounds like controlled immigration to me. What this imbecile Gillard is proposing is about as UN-controlled as immigration can get. Care to elaborate? Housing illegal immigrants in the community is simply ludicrous and a threat to national security. Yes, I agree. However, nobody is suggesting that illegal immigrants should be housed in the community. Not sure where you're getting that information from. This is about a scheme to "host asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas." Asylum seekers with bridging visas are not illegal immigrants. So, what exactly are you talking about?  Can you provide something to support your claim? Ummm, are you really THAT dumb? They won't be held in detention, so where else do you think they'll be living? Perhaps at the local McDonalds??? "Under a plan slated to start next month, the government will seek to access the 5000 homes registered under the privately run Australian Homestay Network (AHN) to host asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas. AHN was originally established to provide short-term private home accommodation and board for international students."

I'll type this slowly, so that you can keep up.

You said "illegal immigrants" housed in the community.

Nobody, anywhere, in any country, from any political party is talking about housing illegal immigrants in the community.

The scheme is about asylum seekers with bridging visas being housed in the community.

Do you understand, or are you really that stupid.

So, I'll ask you again:

Where does it say anything about illegal immigrants being housed in the community?  Provide a link, something.

Think about it this way.

A pedo gets out of gaol and has no-where to go. The authorities dont tell you that this person is a pedo just out of gaol and they offer him to you to house. You have kids.

Compare that to
An assylum seeker that is a pedo, loves the idea of marrying 10 year olds, has raped kids back in home land. The authorities dont tell you what this person has done or is like (because they just dont know). They offer him to you to house. You have kids.

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:31pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:18pm: Lets see how many people die, get ripped off, children raped by this labor policy. Are you seriously suggesting that these Australian hosts will rape the asylum seekers? What a sad little "man" you are. ::) You sad little boy. They are just single men they are going to offer to live in your home, not children. I cant be so sure your lefty gay mates would not though.

You're the sad one, you sick bugger.

Your mind went straight to rape.

Pretty low of you to be accusing Australians of raping refugees.

If I were in your neighbourhood, I'd be worried about you: a sick little puppy preoccupied with rape.  Sad indeed.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:33pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:29pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:26pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:17pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:03pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:15pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 5:07pm: For the record, I am FOR immigration - but it must be CONTROLLED immigration. We must have the right to decide who stays here. I'm with you 100%. If any of the asylum seekers are found not to be genuine refugees, they should be sent home.  And they are (the majority are granted refugee status though). Asylum seekers are locked up in mandatory detention while their claims are processed.  If their stories don't check out, they're sent home.  That sounds like controlled immigration to me. What this imbecile Gillard is proposing is about as UN-controlled as immigration can get. Care to elaborate? Housing illegal immigrants in the community is simply ludicrous and a threat to national security. Yes, I agree. However, nobody is suggesting that illegal immigrants should be housed in the community. Not sure where you're getting that information from. This is about a scheme to "host asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas." Asylum seekers with bridging visas are not illegal immigrants. So, what exactly are you talking about?  Can you provide something to support your claim? Ummm, are you really THAT dumb? They won't be held in detention, so where else do you think they'll be living? Perhaps at the local McDonalds??? "Under a plan slated to start next month, the government will seek to access the 5000 homes registered under the privately run Australian Homestay Network (AHN) to host asylum seekers released from detention on bridging visas. AHN was originally established to provide short-term private home accommodation and board for international students." I'll type this slowly, so that you can keep up. You said "illegal immigrants" housed in the community. Nobody, anywhere, in any country, from any political party is talking about housing illegal immigrants in the community. The scheme is about asylum seekers with bridging visas being housed in the community. Do you understand, or are you really that stupid. So, I'll ask you again: Where does it say anything about illegal immigrants being housed in the community?  Provide a link, something.

Call them what you want - illegal immigrants or asylum seekers. I don't believe they are asylum seekers. They're country-shoppers. True asylum seekers would stop travelling at the first safe haven they found. These country-shopping illegal immigrants hop from one place to the next hell-bent on reaching Australia because they know our weak government is a soft touch.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:31pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:18pm: Lets see how many people die, get ripped off, children raped by this labor policy. Are you seriously suggesting that these Australian hosts will rape the asylum seekers? What a sad little "man" you are. ::) You sad little boy. They are just single men they are going to offer to live in your home, not children. I cant be so sure your lefty gay mates would not though. You're the sad one, you sick bugger. Your mind went straight to rape. Pretty low of you to be accusing Australians of raping refugees. If I were in your neighbourhood, I'd be worried about you: a sick little puppy preoccupied with rape.  Sad indeed.

Yes it is sick because it hardly ever happens. It is sick because it would never happen. You idiot.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:32pm:

Still waiting to hear from Bob Brown, champion of illegal immigrants, and whether he will take in any of thse Afghan men...

Can you provide a link that supports your claim?

Something that shows Bob Brown supporting illegal immigrants?

I'm curious to see what you come up with.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:31pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:27pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:18pm: Lets see how many people die, get ripped off, children raped by this labor policy. Are you seriously suggesting that these Australian hosts will rape the asylum seekers? What a sad little "man" you are. ::) You sad little boy. They are just single men they are going to offer to live in your home, not children. I cant be so sure your lefty gay mates would not though. You're the sad one, you sick bugger. Your mind went straight to rape. Pretty low of you to be accusing Australians of raping refugees. If I were in your neighbourhood, I'd be worried about you: a sick little puppy preoccupied with rape.  Sad indeed.

You're a fool. Those terrorist Taliban murderers blow up schools with children in them, so do you really think they care about raping women??? They don't even believe women have the right to be educated!!!

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:37pm:

Yes it is sick because it hardly ever happens. It is sick because it would never happen. You idiot.

Settle down chum, you're the one obsessed with rape.  Not me.

You might want to take a cold shower or something   ::)

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:38pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:32pm: Still waiting to hear from Bob Brown, champion of illegal immigrants, and whether he will take in any of thse Afghan men... Can you provide a link that supports your claim? Something that shows Bob Brown supporting illegal immigrants? I'm curious to see what you come up with.

To quote another lunatic Leftard: SLAVES HAVE NO CHOICES!!!

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:40pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:38pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:32pm: Still waiting to hear from Bob Brown, champion of illegal immigrants, and whether he will take in any of thse Afghan men... Can you provide a link that supports your claim? Something that shows Bob Brown supporting illegal immigrants? I'm curious to see what you come up with. To quote another lunatic Leftard: SLAVES HAVE NO CHOICES!!!

I realise that doesn't answer your question, but oh well!  :D :D :D

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:39pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:37pm: Yes it is sick because it hardly ever happens. It is sick because it would never happen. You idiot. Settle down chum, you're the one obsessed with rape.  Not me. You might want to take a cold shower or something   ::)

I dont need to settle at all. I live in reality, not FAIRY left land.

My kids will not be put at risk because of this stupid incompetent labor. What you do with your kids is your dumb business. I do hope that no-one with kids support this dangerous policy of labor's.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:39pm:

You're a fool. Those terrorist Taliban murderers blow up schools with children in them, so do you really think they care about raping women??? They don't even believe women have the right to be educated!!!

I think terrorists and the Taliban are the lowest forms of life around. 

However, that has nothing to do with his thread.  This thread is about legal asylum seekers.

That other forum member was suggesting that Australian families would rape the asylum seekers.  Pretty sick individual.

Try to stay on topic boys, OK?   ;)

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:43pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:39pm: progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:37pm: Yes it is sick because it hardly ever happens. It is sick because it would never happen. You idiot. Settle down chum, you're the one obsessed with rape.  Not me. You might want to take a cold shower or something   ::) I dont need to settle at all. I live in reality, not FAIRY left land. My kids will not be put at risk because of this stupid incompetent labor. What you do with your kids is your dumb business. I do hope that no-one with kids support this dangerous policy of labor's.

No way on God's green Earth I would let one of these country-shopping illegal immigrants stay with my wife and son. I'd rather put up Gillard in my spare bedroom and give her breakfast in bed every morning than let one of these country-shopping illegal immigrants anywhere near my family.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:37pm:

Call them what you want - illegal immigrants or asylum seekers.

It's not a matter of calling them what I want.  This isn't a subjective issue.

It's a matter of fact: they are legal asylum seekers.

Illegal immigrants are something completely different.

Until you understand the difference, you're going to continue making a fool of yourself by displaying your astounding ignorance.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:53pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:37pm: Call them what you want - illegal immigrants or asylum seekers. It's not a matter of calling them what I want.  This isn't a subjective issue. It's a matter of fact: they are legal asylum seekers. Illegal immigrants are something completely different. Until you understand the difference, you're going to continue making a fool of yourself by displaying your astounding ignorance.

Either way, you idiots have egg on your face BIG TIME. Howard stopped them coming, Rudd let them back in and couldn't stop them coming once he realised his mistake. Gillard hasn't done any better than Rudd and has more than likely made things worse after offering to put these country-shoppers up with Australian families. Howard had the solution to this problem, Labor wrecked it and created this mess. It's up to them to dig their own way out of the hole they got themselves into.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:53pm:

Illegal immigrants are something completely different.

Yeah? How are they different?



The boat people are not after protection (=asylum. Offer them temporary protection, aka asylum, and see them go apeshit). They want permanent settlement (aka immigration).

SO tell us, Mr Union Advisor, how are they not illegal immigrants?

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:57pm:

Either way, you idiots have egg on your face BIG TIME. Howard stopped them coming, Rudd let them back in and couldn't stop them coming once he realised his mistake. Gillard hasn't done any better than Rudd and has more than likely made things worse after offering to put these country-shoppers up with Australian families. Howard had the solution to this problem, Labor wrecked it and created this mess. It's up to them to dig their own way out of the hole they got themselves into.

Nope, no egg on the face.

They're perfectly legal asylum seekers.

I have no problem with asylum seekers coming to Australia.

There is no problem.

A problem only exists for racists, bigots, and xenophobes.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:03pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:57pm: Either way, you idiots have egg on your face BIG TIME. Howard stopped them coming, Rudd let them back in and couldn't stop them coming once he realised his mistake. Gillard hasn't done any better than Rudd and has more than likely made things worse after offering to put these country-shoppers up with Australian families. Howard had the solution to this problem, Labor wrecked it and created this mess. It's up to them to dig their own way out of the hole they got themselves into. Nope, no egg on the face. They're perfectly legal asylum seekers. I have no problem with asylum seekers coming to Australia. There is no problem. A problem only exists for racists, bigots, and xenophobes.

MMM, love that egg!!!  :D :D :D

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:03pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:57pm: Either way, you idiots have egg on your face BIG TIME. Howard stopped them coming, Rudd let them back in and couldn't stop them coming once he realised his mistake. Gillard hasn't done any better than Rudd and has more than likely made things worse after offering to put these country-shoppers up with Australian families. Howard had the solution to this problem, Labor wrecked it and created this mess. It's up to them to dig their own way out of the hole they got themselves into. Nope, no egg on the face. They're perfectly legal asylum seekers. I have no problem with asylum seekers coming to Australia. There is no problem. A problem only exists for racists, bigots, and xenophobes.

As a Union Advisor, you are the Labor Government's intellectual backbone, Meat Head. And looking at your arguments, we can see why they are buggered beyond redemption.  Because of people like you. You represent the best of Labor. You are an 'advisor' in the 'movement'. Meat heads like you are the brains behind Labor.
God help them.i

Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:02pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:53pm: Illegal immigrants are something completely different. Yeah? How are they different?

An illegal immigrant is someone who has moved from one state to another without any legal claim, such as a visa or a claim for asylum. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are applying for asylum, which means they are complying with Australian law.

Completely different.

One is legal - asylum seeker.

One is not - illegal immigrant.

Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:10pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:03pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:57pm: Either way, you idiots have egg on your face BIG TIME. Howard stopped them coming, Rudd let them back in and couldn't stop them coming once he realised his mistake. Gillard hasn't done any better than Rudd and has more than likely made things worse after offering to put these country-shoppers up with Australian families. Howard had the solution to this problem, Labor wrecked it and created this mess. It's up to them to dig their own way out of the hole they got themselves into. Nope, no egg on the face. They're perfectly legal asylum seekers. I have no problem with asylum seekers coming to Australia. There is no problem. A problem only exists for racists, bigots, and xenophobes. As a Union Advisor, you are the Labor Government's intellectual backbone, Meat Head. And looking at your arguments, we can see why they are buggered beyond redemption.  Because of people like you. You represent the best of Labor. You are an 'advisor' in the 'movement'. Meat heads like you are the brains behind Labor. God help them.

Ah, I love it when I hit the right nerve.

So, which one are you?  Hang on, let me guess: all three.

Racist, bigot, and xenophobe.    ;D

Your mum must be so proud.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:11pm:

Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:02pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:53pm: Illegal immigrants are something completely different. Yeah? How are they different? An illegal immigrant is someone who has moved from one state to another without any legal claim, such as a visa or a claim for asylum. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are applying for asylum, which means they are complying with Australian law. Completely different. One is legal - asylum seeker. One is not - illegal immigrant.

Would you like bacon with that egg?  ;D

Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:02pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:53pm: Illegal immigrants are something completely different. Yeah? How are they different? The boat people are not after protection (=asylum. Offer them temporary protection, aka asylum, and see them go apeshit). They want permanent settlement (aka immigration). SO tell us, Mr Union Advisor, how are they not illegal immigrants?

Simple: they actually claim asylum.

Pretty basic stuff.  That's why they're called asylum seekers: as soon as they are intercepted they claim asylum.

Plus, the ones in the OP actually have bridging visas, thus, certainly not illegal immigrants.

You really need to be a bit sharper than that if you want to play with the adults.

Go away, do some research and come back when you've learned a little bit.

At the moment you're making some of these other clowns look like Einstein.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:11pm:

Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:02pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:53pm: Illegal immigrants are something completely different. Yeah? How are they different? An illegal immigrant is someone who has moved from one state to another without any legal claim, such as a visa or a claim for asylum. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are applying for asylum, which means they are complying with Australian law. Completely different. One is legal - asylum seeker. One is not - illegal immigrant.

SO all you have to say is" asylum, please', and as if by magic, the illegal immigrant becomes a legal asylum seeker. It is even simpler than abrakadabra.

You are really, really a stupid git. Just stupendous.  And you area union advisor, you say.

What else have you got? I am amazed.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:21pm:

Would you like bacon with that egg?  ;D

I think your presence has already exceeded this forum's quota of pig.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:23pm:

Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:02pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:53pm: Illegal immigrants are something completely different. Yeah? How are they different? The boat people are not after protection (=asylum. Offer them temporary protection, aka asylum, and see them go apeshit). They want permanent settlement (aka immigration). SO tell us, Mr Union Advisor, how are they not illegal immigrants? Simple: they actually claim asylum. Pretty basic stuff.  That's why they're called asylum seekers: as soon as they are intercepted they claim asylum. Plus, the ones in the OP actually have bridging visas, thus, certainly not illegal immigrants. You really need to be a bit sharper than that if you want to play with the adults. Go away, do some research and come back when you've learned a little bit. At the moment you're making some of these other clowns look like Einstein.

MMM, love that egg!!!  :)

Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:24pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:11pm: Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:02pm: Uncle Meat wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 10:53pm: Illegal immigrants are something completely different. Yeah? How are they different? An illegal immigrant is someone who has moved from one state to another without any legal claim, such as a visa or a claim for asylum. Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants. They are applying for asylum, which means they are complying with Australian law. Completely different. One is legal - asylum seeker. One is not - illegal immigrant. SO all you have to say is" asylum, please', and as if by magic, the illegal immigrant becomes a legal asylum seeker. It is even simpler than abrakadabra. You are really, really a stupid git. Just stupendous.  And you area union advisor, you say. What else have you got? I am amazed.

You honestly had no idea about how the asylum seeking process works.  Did you?

LOL

Oh my, that's just classic.    ;D

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:14pm:

Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:10pm: As a Union Advisor, you are the Labor Government's intellectual backbone, Meat Head. And looking at your arguments, we can see why they are buggered beyond redemption.  Because of people like you. You represent the best of Labor. You are an 'advisor' in the 'movement'. Meat heads like you are the brains behind Labor. God help them. Ah, I love it when I hit the right nerve.

DO you? What nerve would that be, exactly? That with people like you as its backbone, Labor is buggered? Does that come across to you as some sort of grudging recognition of your ability?

Would you leave your wife alone with a male from Afghanistan or Pakistan that no-one knows anything about while you are off to work.

This is going to blow up.

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:30pm:

Would you leave your wife alone with a male from Afghanistan or Pakistan that no-one knows anything about while you are off to work. This is going to blow up.

Can't wait for the first news headline showing one of these country-shoppers being arrested for assaulting the very people who put them up.

Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:28pm:

DO you?

Yes, that's why I said it. 


Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:28pm:

What nerve would that be, exactly?

Your racist, bigot, xenophobe nerve.  The one that runs down your back, where your spine should be.


Soren wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:28pm:

That with people like you as its backbone, Labor is buggered?

I have nothing to do with the ALP.  I'm an adviser to certain Unions.  I'm not employed directly by any one Union, and I'm certainly not a member of any political party.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:33pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:30pm: Would you leave your wife alone with a male from Afghanistan or Pakistan that no-one knows anything about while you are off to work. This is going to blow up. Can't wait for the first news headline showing one of these country-shoppers being arrested for assaulting the very people who put them up.

Here is another you will hear whether true or not

Asylum seeker seeks damages for being raped by a person who took them into their home through labors new policy.

Asylum seeker seeks damages for being injured at a home they were taken into through labors new policy.

Asylum seeker seeks damages for being psychologically damaged through abuse at a home they were taken into through labors new policy.

progressiveslol wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:30pm:

Would you leave your wife alone with a male from Afghanistan or Pakistan that no-one knows anything about while you are off to work.

LOL

Wife home alone doing the housework while the "man" goes off to work.     ;D

What's it like living in the '50s man?   

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:41pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:30pm: Would you leave your wife alone with a male from Afghanistan or Pakistan that no-one knows anything about while you are off to work. LOL Wife home alone doing the housework while the "man" goes off to work.     ;D What's it like living in the '50s man?

idiot. You dont have a clue do you. It is a dam example moron.

BTW I work from home so am the houseworker lol


Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:36pm:

You're the sad one, you sick bugger.

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:35pm:

Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:28pm: DO you? Yes, that's why I said it.  Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:28pm: What nerve would that be, exactly? Your racist, bigot, xenophobe nerve.  The one that runs down your back, where your spine should be. Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:28pm: That with people like you as its backbone, Labor is buggered? I have nothing to do with the ALP.  I'm an adviser to certain Unions.  I'm not employed directly by any one Union, and I'm certainly not a member of any political party.

Did you advise HSU east big wigs on how to make money and get people into the labor party?

Uncle Meat wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 11:35pm:

Soren wrote on May 3rd, 2012 at 11:28pm: What nerve would that be, exactly? Your racist, bigot, xenophobe nerve.  The one that runs down your back, where your spine should be.

Brilliant. I say "As a Union Advisor, you are the Labor Government's intellectual backbone, Meat Head. And looking at your arguments, we can see why they are buggered beyond redemption.  Because of people like you. You represent the best of Labor. You are an 'advisor' in the 'movement'. Meat heads like you are the brains behind Labor.
God help them."

to which you say:
Ooh, that hit your racist, bigot, xenophobe nerve.


And you say you are advising various unions? Lucky, jammy bastards, aren't they, those unions, having you for an advisor.

buzzanddidj wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 12:47pm:

It's a THREE WAY benefit 1. It gives Australians the opportunity to MEET, KNOW and BEFRIEND a refugee 2. It give a refugee an easier path in fitting in to a culture, often alien to them 3. It reduces the MILLIONS spent on prison costs by the taxpayer

... and CONTRARY to RUMOUR - participation is NOT COMPULSORY


Quote:

This is the ludicrous point we’ve come to - that thousands of Australian homes must be turned into hoarding hostels for the boat people that Labor stupidly lured over - Andrew Bolt http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/and_every_aussie_home_a_boarding_house_for_boat_people/

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/and_every_aussie_home_a_boarding_house_for_boat_people/