Labor has been caught with its pants down after the AFP contradicted what Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare told reporters about the "interception" of the latest boatload of illegal immigrants. Oh, by the way - that's 11 boats in 11 days and that makes it well over 700 people this month already.



DRAMATIC details have emerged of how 32 asylum seekers were rescued on a remote island in the middle of the Indian Ocean after the federal government originally claimed their boat was "intercepted" like other vessels.

In an embarrassment to Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare, the Australian Federal Police yesterday said it had "immediately" reported to Mr Clare's department on Saturday afternoon that the Sri Lankan asylum seekers were involved in a two-hour "rescue" on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

The contradiction emerged as two more boats arrived yesterday, further engulfing the Gillard government in a border protection crisis that appears to have no end.

A record month now looms for Labor, with the arrival of the 11th boat within the first 11 days of June.

A total of 717 people have already arrived this month - on track to challenge the 1645 arrivals in August 2001.

Customs and Border Protection yesterday intercepted a boat carrying 110 people northeast of Christmas Island after earlier discovering another vessel carrying 38 passengers and two crew to the northwest.

In the weekend rescue, an AFP spokesman said staff sent a rigid-hulled inflatable boat to North Keeling Island after seeing smoke rising about 24 nautical miles from the main Cocos Island.

The asylum seeker boat had run into the rocky shoreline with the vessel beached but remaining intact.

Those onboard then started a fire and were discovered.

But an AFP officer then had to repeatedly escort the men in life jackets, one-by-one, from the island to a barge anchored 75m offshore.

"Access to North Keeling Island can be difficult and is dependent of weather," the AFP spokeswoman said.

In a three-paragraph statement released on Sunday before the media reported the rescue details, Mr Clare said: "The (AFP) intercepted a vessel at Cocos (Keeling) Islands overnight."

Mr Clare's office yesterday said the description was "standard words" used to provide prompt advice. But Cocos Club president John Clunies-Ross said: "It was not an interception and the rescue was not without risk."

Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday baulked at explaining the discrepancies.

"I'll wait until we've got the full advice from relevant authorities," she said.

Opposition border protection spokesman Michael Keenan said: "Why misrepresent what has occurred when the truth will do? The government must clarify what occurred."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/boat-interception-was-not-the-whole-story/story-e6freuy9-1226391658295

Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday baulked at explaining the discrepancies. "I'll wait until we've got the full advice from relevant authorities," she said.

Gotta love Jules - she has all the advice she needs from the ALP but is stalling so her spin doctors can come up with some kind of lie or excuse to explain why it's not really yet another lie from her government.

They say a picture paints a thousand words...

http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/5669/659424asylumseekerseven.jpg

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Information coming in about it may be slow and wrong @ first. Their communications lines take a lil while to warm up and @ first nobody knows whats going on. It soon becomes clear and the information is sent up the line to the boss.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:28am:

Information coming in about it may be slow and wrong @ first. Their communications lines take a lil while to warm up and @ first nobody knows whats going on. It soon becomes clear and the information is sent up the line to the boss. SOB

That's a lame excuse. The onus is on the government to ensure it has all the information at hand before reporting anything to the media. Besides, the government was clearly briefed on the true nature of this event, as proven by what the AFP said.

$10,000 per head equals close to $40,000,000 for the people smugglers.

The Pacific Solution worked and Labor got rid off it

---

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:28am:

Information coming in about it may be slow and wrong @ first. Their communications lines take a lil while to warm up and @ first nobody knows whats going on. It soon becomes clear and the information is sent up the line to the boss. SOB

Another STUPID statement from our borg who is averaging 63 stupid posts per day.

Maqqa wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:32am:

The Pacific Solution worked and Labor got rid off it

How any person can look at that graph and claim the Pacific Solution was anything but a resounding success at stopping the boats is completely beyond my comprehension.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:30am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:28am: Information coming in about it may be slow and wrong @ first. Their communications lines take a lil while to warm up and @ first nobody knows whats going on. It soon becomes clear and the information is sent up the line to the boss. SOB That's a lame excuse. The onus is on the government to ensure it has all the information at hand before reporting anything to the media. Besides, the government was clearly briefed on the true nature of this event, as proven by what the AFP said.

How do you know gillard or even labs released the info to the media?

SOB

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:37am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:32am: The Pacific Solution worked and Labor got rid off it How any person can look at that graph and claim the Pacific Solution was anything but a resounding success at stopping the boats is completely beyond my comprehension.

How did it stop the boats across the entire OECD?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments//AsylumSeekersAusOECD.jpg

Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/AsylumFacts

Do you even understand the question?

Gist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:37am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:32am: The Pacific Solution worked and Labor got rid off it How any person can look at that graph and claim the Pacific Solution was anything but a resounding success at stopping the boats is completely beyond my comprehension. How did it stop the boats across the entire OECD? http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments//AsylumSeekersAusOECD.jpg Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/AsylumFacts Do you even understand the question?

I dont see where the graph shows boats.

Don't you people have anything better to whine about?

Gist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 10:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:37am: Maqqa wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:32am: The Pacific Solution worked and Labor got rid off it How any person can look at that graph and claim the Pacific Solution was anything but a resounding success at stopping the boats is completely beyond my comprehension. How did it stop the boats across the entire OECD? http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments//AsylumSeekersAusOECD.jpg Source: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2011-2012/AsylumFacts Do you even understand the question?

Ohhhh, I see what you're getting at now! Man, are you stupid or what??? The government of John Howard was not responsible for what happens in other countries of the OECD. The legislation for the Pacific Solution was for Australia only. How the hell is Howard supposed to stop boats going to NZ or New Guinea or Vanuatu??? I always knew you were a moron, but this really takes the cake!!!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 10:28am:

Ohhhh, I see what you're getting at now! Man, are you stupid or what??? The government of John Howard was not responsible for what happens in other countries of the OECD. The legislation for the Pacific Solution was for Australia only. How the hell is Howard supposed to stop boats going to NZ or New Guinea or Vanuatu??? I always knew you were a moron, but this really takes the cake!!!

Well then if Howard's Pacific Solution had no possible effect on other OECD nations, how come the numbers of refugees went down over there at the same time as the numbers here? YOU claim the numbers here dropped because of the Pacific Solution. How come they also dropped across the OECD?

Got it? Shall I draw it in crayon for you?

Now ... got an answer?

Gist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 10:28am: Ohhhh, I see what you're getting at now! Man, are you stupid or what??? The government of John Howard was not responsible for what happens in other countries of the OECD. The legislation for the Pacific Solution was for Australia only. How the hell is Howard supposed to stop boats going to NZ or New Guinea or Vanuatu??? I always knew you were a moron, but this really takes the cake!!! Well then if Howard's Pacific Solution had no possible effect on other OECD nations, how come the numbers of refugees went down over there at the same time as the numbers here? YOU claim the numbers here dropped because of the Pacific Solution. How come they also dropped across the OECD? Got it? Shall I draw it in crayon for you? Now ... got an answer?

Look at the graph I posted - the numbers compared different policies in Australia

But if you want to deliberately mislead others then that's you problem

All personal abuse aside, is that chart for all asylum seekers ?
Not specifically the illegals on boats ?
there will always be legitimate asylum seekers.
The chart shows a low of about 2000, thought Johnny had a low of illegals MUCH less than that.

Quote:

Not specifically the illegals on boats ?

No illegals on boats.

SOB

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:30am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:28am: Information coming in about it may be slow and wrong @ first. Their communications lines take a lil while to warm up and @ first nobody knows whats going on. It soon becomes clear and the information is sent up the line to the boss. SOB That's a lame excuse. The onus is on the government to ensure it has all the information at hand before reporting anything to the media. Besides, the government was clearly briefed on the true nature of this event, as proven by what the AFP said.

if there is a pressing issue, i expect the govt to become informed on it.
we do here at work, when a problem arises, rush out to attack it.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 11:01am:

Quote: Not specifically the illegals on boats ? No illegals on boats. SOB

i don't worry too much about semantics. the boat people, who come here uninvited, with no legal paperwork, no legal ship, no legal log book, no legal identities, through illegal avenues.

many people term them "illegals"

Are asylum seekers ‘illegals’?

Generally speaking ‘illegal immigrants’ are people who enter a country without meeting the legal requirements for entry (without a valid visa, for example). However, under Article 14 of the 1948 Universal declaration of human rights, everyone has the right to seek asylum and the 1951 Refugee Convention prohibits states from imposing penalties on those entering ‘illegally’ who come directly from a territory where their life or freedom is threatened



Even the website that GIST quoted made clear distinction between

(1) The act of entering a country without a VISA is ILLEGAL

(2) But once you are there - you are allowed to claim asylum.

But that does not make you legal until you get a VISA.

As an illegal - it seems the only way to stop the Australian government from deporting you is to claim asylum.

The claim will be assessed. If there are no basis for the claim then you are deported.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 11:05am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:30am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:28am: Information coming in about it may be slow and wrong @ first. Their communications lines take a lil while to warm up and @ first nobody knows whats going on. It soon becomes clear and the information is sent up the line to the boss. SOB That's a lame excuse. The onus is on the government to ensure it has all the information at hand before reporting anything to the media. Besides, the government was clearly briefed on the true nature of this event, as proven by what the AFP said. if there is a pressing issue, i expect the govt to become informed on it. we do here at work, when a problem arises, rush out to attack it.

yup. But do you have an opposition @ work actively working against you and leaking things to the media before you have a chance to catch up on the facts of the matter?

SOB

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 11:09am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 11:01am: Quote: Not specifically the illegals on boats ? No illegals on boats. SOB i don't worry too much about semantics. the boat people, who come here uninvited, with no legal paperwork, no legal ship, no legal log book, no legal identities, through illegal avenues. many people term them "illegals"

they are wrong though.

SOB

Maqqa wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 10:54am:

Gist wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 10:45am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 10:28am: Ohhhh, I see what you're getting at now! Man, are you stupid or what??? The government of John Howard was not responsible for what happens in other countries of the OECD. The legislation for the Pacific Solution was for Australia only. How the hell is Howard supposed to stop boats going to NZ or New Guinea or Vanuatu??? I always knew you were a moron, but this really takes the cake!!! Well then if Howard's Pacific Solution had no possible effect on other OECD nations, how come the numbers of refugees went down over there at the same time as the numbers here? YOU claim the numbers here dropped because of the Pacific Solution. How come they also dropped across the OECD? Got it? Shall I draw it in crayon for you? Now ... got an answer? Look at the graph I posted - the numbers compared different policies in Australia But if you want to deliberately mislead others then that's you problem

Your chart and mine both show asylum seeker arrivals 1999-2010. Yours show boat arrivals only for Australia. Mine shows all arrivals in Australia and all arrivals in the OECD. This is necessary because some OECD countries would never have arrivals by boat so you'd get a skewed picture if it only showed boat arrivals. Otherwise the two charts show the same things. They come from the same source. There is no misleading on my part.

So again... why did the Pacific Solution reduce asylum seeker numbers across the OECD?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 6:09am:

Labor has been caught with its pants down after the AFP contradicted what Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare told reporters about the "interception" of the latest boatload of illegal immigrants.

You seem a little confused.

Asylum seekers coming to Australia in boats, without a visa, are not illegal immigrants.

If you want to be taken seriously perhaps you should learn a little bit about the subject before making silly statements like that.

Here, I'll give you a free lesson:

Arrive by boat with no visa and claim asylum = legal asylum seeker.

Arrive by plane (or boat) with visa and overstay the visa = illegal immigrant.

You're welcome.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:30am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:28am: Information coming in about it may be slow and wrong @ first. Their communications lines take a lil while to warm up and @ first nobody knows whats going on. It soon becomes clear and the information is sent up the line to the boss. SOB That's a lame excuse. The onus is on the government to ensure it has all the information at hand before reporting anything to the media. Besides, the government was clearly briefed on the true nature of this event, as proven by what the AFP said.

Best not to argue, SOB,Armpit is an expert on lame excuses.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 11:09am:

i don't worry too much about semantics. the boat people, who come here uninvited, with no legal paperwork, no legal ship, no legal log book, no legal identities, through illegal avenues.

Legal asylum seekers.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 7:37am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 7:32am: The Pacific Solution worked and Labor got rid off it How any person can look at that graph and claim the Pacific Solution was anything but a resounding success at stopping the boats is completely beyond my comprehension.

Sure if you conceed that stopping the boats is the only goal.

Unfortunately breaking every international law and ignoring our international obligations just to "stop the boats" is really to most gutless, inhuman solution to this "issue"

No suprise it came (and continues to come) from the LNP ...

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 11:37am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:09am: Labor has been caught with its pants down after the AFP contradicted what Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare told reporters about the "interception" of the latest boatload of illegal immigrants. You seem a little confused. Asylum seekers coming to Australia in boats, without a visa, are not illegal immigrants. If you want to be taken seriously perhaps you should learn a little bit about the subject before making silly statements like that. Here, I'll give you a free lesson: Arrive by boat with no visa and claim asylum = legal asylum seeker. Correction: It is not legal to enter this country without proper legal documentation such as a passport and visa. Upon being detained by Customs and/or the Navy you are being detained under the Immigration Act for having entered or attempted to enter Australia without a passport and visa, which is illegal. Upon being interviews by officials from the Dept. of Immigration, you have the right to apply for asylum and are subsequently detained in an Immigration Detention Facility while health, security and background checks are carried out. Until your application has been assessed as being genuine, you are being detained for having entered or attempted to enter Australia illegally. If granted asylum, you will be released and no further legal action against you will be pursued for having attempted to enter Australia without documentation. If you and other Leftards fail to comprehend that simple fact, then God help us because people who share your way of thinking currently run this country! Arrive by plane (or boat) with visa and overstay the visa = illegal immigrant. Wrong - all you are guilty of is overstaying the length of time your visa is valid for. That does NOT make you an illegal immigrant. You're welcome. You're quite welcome for giving me the opportunity to correct you on your continual mistakes. Have a nice day!  :)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 11:37am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:09am: Labor has been caught with its pants down after the AFP contradicted what Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare told reporters about the "interception" of the latest boatload of illegal immigrants. You seem a little confused. Asylum seekers coming to Australia in boats, without a visa, are not illegal immigrants. If you want to be taken seriously perhaps you should learn a little bit about the subject before making silly statements like that. Here, I'll give you a free lesson: Arrive by boat with no visa and claim asylum = legal asylum seeker. Correction: It is not legal to enter this country without proper legal documentation such as a passport and visa. Upon being detained by Customs and/or the Navy you are being detained under the Immigration Act for having entered or attempted to enter Australia without a passport and visa, which is illegal. Upon being interviews by officials from the Dept. of Immigration, you have the right to apply for asylum and are subsequently detained in an Immigration Detention Facility while health, security and background checks are carried out. Until your application has been assessed as being genuine, you are being detained for having entered or attempted to enter Australia illegally. If granted asylum, you will be released and no further legal action against you will be pursued for having attempted to enter Australia without documentation. If you and other Leftards fail to comprehend that simple fact, then God help us because people who share your way of thinking currently run this country! Arrive by plane (or boat) with visa and overstay the visa = illegal immigrant. Wrong - all you are guilty of is overstaying the length of time your visa is valid for. That does NOT make you an illegal immigrant. You're welcome. You're quite welcome for giving me the opportunity to correct you on your continual mistakes. Have a nice day!  :)

You've been a busy little politician answering questions. But not mine -


Gist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 10:45am:

YOU claim the numbers here dropped because of the Pacific Solution. How come they also dropped across the OECD?

Do you understand the question? Do you need help with the answer?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

Wrong - all you are guilty of is overstaying the length of time your visa is valid for. That does NOT make you an illegal immigrant.

Incorrect (once again).  You really are ignorant on these matters, aren't you?

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050

Visa overstayers = illegal immigrants.

Boat people claiming asylum = legal asylum seekers.

Do a little research before making a bigger fool of yourself.   ;)

Gist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 12:04pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 11:57am: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 11:37am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:09am: Labor has been caught with its pants down after the AFP contradicted what Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare told reporters about the "interception" of the latest boatload of illegal immigrants. You seem a little confused. Asylum seekers coming to Australia in boats, without a visa, are not illegal immigrants. If you want to be taken seriously perhaps you should learn a little bit about the subject before making silly statements like that. Here, I'll give you a free lesson: Arrive by boat with no visa and claim asylum = legal asylum seeker. Correction: It is not legal to enter this country without proper legal documentation such as a passport and visa. Upon being detained by Customs and/or the Navy you are being detained under the Immigration Act for having entered or attempted to enter Australia without a passport and visa, which is illegal. Upon being interviews by officials from the Dept. of Immigration, you have the right to apply for asylum and are subsequently detained in an Immigration Detention Facility while health, security and background checks are carried out. Until your application has been assessed as being genuine, you are being detained for having entered or attempted to enter Australia illegally. If granted asylum, you will be released and no further legal action against you will be pursued for having attempted to enter Australia without documentation. If you and other Leftards fail to comprehend that simple fact, then God help us because people who share your way of thinking currently run this country! Arrive by plane (or boat) with visa and overstay the visa = illegal immigrant. Wrong - all you are guilty of is overstaying the length of time your visa is valid for. That does NOT make you an illegal immigrant. You're welcome. You're quite welcome for giving me the opportunity to correct you on your continual mistakes. Have a nice day!  :) You've been a busy little politician answering questions. But not mine - Gist wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 10:45am: YOU claim the numbers here dropped because of the Pacific Solution. How come they also dropped across the OECD? Do you understand the question? Do you need help with the answer?

Did the numbers drop by the same amount across the entire OECD? No - thank you! Can you show us a similar graph depicting the same data since Rudd dismantled the Pacific Solution? I'll bet you any money that it shows our arrivals far outstripping the arrivals of any other nation in the OECD. Now, please go back to the children's table, thank you very much!  :D

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 11:57am: Wrong - all you are guilty of is overstaying the length of time your visa is valid for. That does NOT make you an illegal immigrant. Incorrect (once again).  You really are ignorant on these matters, aren't you? http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050 Visa overstayers = illegal immigrants. Boat people claiming asylum = legal asylum seekers. Do a little research before making a bigger fool of yourself.   ;)

Ever worked in Customs or the Immigration Dept? I have - I worked in Customs for 7.5 years. A person who overstays their visa is guilty of that only. Depending on the circumstances, most people are given their marching orders and told to be on a plane or they face jail and/or fines. The vast majority are outta here faster than Speedy Gonzales. Boat people who claim asylum are legally entitled to do so, however they are also detained for having breached immigration laws by arriving without a passport and visa until their claim has been assessed. If their claim is rejected, they are deported. It's really THAT simple.

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 10:27am:

Don't you people have anything better to whine about?

RAOFPMSL...

What like? Jews and priests?

:D :D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 12:07pm:

Did the numbers drop by the same amount across the entire OECD? No - thank you!

Maybe you need some education in graphs? The OECD numbers are plotted against the left scale and the Australian numbers against the right. Clearly, in 2001 the OECD numbers were about 600,000 while Australia had 12,000. Roll forward to 2005 and the numbers are about 300,000 vs 4,000. If numbers in Australia dropped by the same amount as for the OECD then we'd be in negative numbers. We'd have Australians seeking asylum in other countries!


Quote:

Can you show us a similar graph depicting the same data since Rudd dismantled the Pacific Solution? I'll bet you any money that it shows our arrivals far outstripping the arrivals of any other nation in the OECD. Now, please go back to the children's table, thank you very much!  :D

But since dismantling the Pacific Solution there is by definition NO Pacific Solution! You are the loonies who keep saying "the Pacific Solution stopped the boats", not me. It's pretty pointless looking at periods when it doesn't exist - we can only look at the period where it did exist.

So, how did the PS reduce numbers across the OECD? A drop of 300,000 is a big drop. You should have no trouble explaining that AP!

Gist wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 12:28pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Did the numbers drop by the same amount across the entire OECD? No - thank you! Maybe you need some education in graphs? The OECD numbers are plotted against the left scale and the Australian numbers against the right. Clearly, in 2001 the OECD numbers were about 600,000 while Australia had 12,000. Roll forward to 2005 and the numbers are about 300,000 vs 4,000. If numbers in Australia dropped by the same amount as for the OECD then we'd be in negative numbers. We'd have Australians seeking asylum in other countries! Quote: Can you show us a similar graph depicting the same data since Rudd dismantled the Pacific Solution? I'll bet you any money that it shows our arrivals far outstripping the arrivals of any other nation in the OECD. Now, please go back to the children's table, thank you very much!  :D But since dismantling the Pacific Solution there is by definition NO Pacific Solution! You are the loonies who keep saying "the Pacific Solution stopped the boats", not me. It's pretty pointless looking at periods when it doesn't exist - we can only look at the period where it did exist. So, how did the PS reduce numbers across the OECD? A drop of 300,000 is a big drop. You should have no trouble explaining that AP!

Ohhhh, right. So because the Gillard government doesn't have a policy with a name, there's no possible way to graph it in the same way that graph you mention shows Australia under Howard's reign against the OECD countries. Right, thanks for clearing that up. Moron!  ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 12:11pm:

Depending on the circumstances, most people are given their marching orders and told to be on a plane or they face jail and/or fines. The vast majority are outta here faster than Speedy Gonzales.

I don't think so.  And neither does the Immigration Department.



"Other details provided by the Immigration Department include:

MORE than half of the overstayers have called Australia home for five or more years.

ABOUT 20,000 have lived here a decade or more.

TWO in three have evaded immigration authorities for more than two years."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050

"Three in four of the 58,400 visa overstayers came on tourist or holiday-working visas; one in seven arrived as students and one in 15 disappeared after being granted temporary residency.

Last year, only 6720 visa overstayers were sent home ... "

LOL, its just sooooooooo easy to make armpits arguments look stupid.

skippy. wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 12:56pm:

LOL, its just sooooooooo easy to make armpits arguments look stupid.

It's just so easy to make you Leftards look incredibly dumb when you defend an ALP policy that has failed so comprehensively that it actually assists people smugglers!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 12:36pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:28pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:07pm: Did the numbers drop by the same amount across the entire OECD? No - thank you! Maybe you need some education in graphs? The OECD numbers are plotted against the left scale and the Australian numbers against the right. Clearly, in 2001 the OECD numbers were about 600,000 while Australia had 12,000. Roll forward to 2005 and the numbers are about 300,000 vs 4,000. If numbers in Australia dropped by the same amount as for the OECD then we'd be in negative numbers. We'd have Australians seeking asylum in other countries! Quote: Can you show us a similar graph depicting the same data since Rudd dismantled the Pacific Solution? I'll bet you any money that it shows our arrivals far outstripping the arrivals of any other nation in the OECD. Now, please go back to the children's table, thank you very much!  :D But since dismantling the Pacific Solution there is by definition NO Pacific Solution! You are the loonies who keep saying "the Pacific Solution stopped the boats", not me. It's pretty pointless looking at periods when it doesn't exist - we can only look at the period where it did exist. So, how did the PS reduce numbers across the OECD? A drop of 300,000 is a big drop. You should have no trouble explaining that AP! Ohhhh, right. So because the Gillard government doesn't have a policy with a name, there's no possible way to graph it in the same way that graph you mention shows Australia under Howard's reign against the OECD countries. Right, thanks for clearing that up. Moron!  ::)

Well it should seem pretty obvious to anyone with more smarts than last weeks boiled turnip that you can't graph something that doesn't exist.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:04pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:56pm: LOL, its just sooooooooo easy to make armpits arguments look stupid. It's just so easy to make you Leftards look incredibly dumb when you defend an ALP policy that has failed so comprehensively that it actually assists people smugglers!

I think you'll find few on here who actually defend the Labor policy. I don't! I simply like pointing out how retarded your arguments are. But then I do enjoy the simple pleasures of life...  ;D

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 12:47pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:11pm: Depending on the circumstances, most people are given their marching orders and told to be on a plane or they face jail and/or fines. The vast majority are outta here faster than Speedy Gonzales. I don't think so.  And neither does the Immigration Department. "Other details provided by the Immigration Department include: MORE than half of the overstayers have called Australia home for five or more years. ABOUT 20,000 have lived here a decade or more. TWO in three have evaded immigration authorities for more than two years." http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050 "Three in four of the 58,400 visa overstayers came on tourist or holiday-working visas; one in seven arrived as students and one in 15 disappeared after being granted temporary residency. Last year, only 6720 visa overstayers were sent home ... "

A visa overstayer cannot claim asylum you dopey leftwads ignore this fact.

A visa overstayer cannot claim centrelink,medicare,department of housing, the government does not offer 300 per week to house them,there are no free smokes or mobile phones for visa overstayers, there are no government handouts for visa overstayers

If you dont have a tax file number does that mean you pay more tax?

Australia is promoted as a tourist destination should we be harsh on visa overstayers who did arrive here with a passport and visa?

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:10pm:

A visa overstayer cannot claim asylum you dopey leftwads ignore this fact.

Try to keep up, ok?

I'm merely demonstrating:

a) asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants
b) visa overstyers are illegal immigrants
c) the majority of them are not sent home "faster than Speedy Gonzales" (another lie from the retarded right)


Stay focused.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:19pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:10pm: A visa overstayer cannot claim asylum you dopey leftwads ignore this fact. Try to keep up, ok? I'm merely demonstrating: a) asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants b) visa overstyers are illegal immigrants c) the majority of them are not sent home "faster than Speedy Gonzales" (another lie from the retarded right) Stay focused.

Yes the majority of visa overstayers leave voluntarily.

Are visa overstayers  called unlawful non citizens?

Visa overstayers are irrelevant to the boat people topic, just a pathetic deflection from leftards to cover up this billion dollar debacle caused by myopic labor.

A visa overstayer cannot claim asylum the dim witted leftards ignore this fact.

skippy. wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 12:56pm:

LOL, its just sooooooooo easy to make armpits arguments look stupid.

if that were true, then it shoudl be easy for YOU to do it. But you never do. your ONLY response is abuse.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:25pm:

Visa overstayers are irrelevant to the boat people topic, just a pathetic deflection from leftards to cover up this billion dollar debacle caused by myopic labor.

Nope.  Wrong again.

The retarded right always use the term "illegal immigrants" first.

Those on the left never bring it up first, because they know it is, as you have stated, irrelevant in regard to boat people.

However, when the retarded right insist on mentioning that term we on the left need to set them straight (most are fairly slow learners).

So, we have to explain to these dopey dimwits that visa overstayers are in fact illegal immigrants, not asylum seekers.

Understand now, or are you one of those even slower learners?  Hmmm?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:19pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:10pm: A visa overstayer cannot claim asylum you dopey leftwads ignore this fact. Try to keep up, ok? I'm merely demonstrating: a) asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants b) visa overstyers are illegal immigrants c) the majority of them are not sent home "faster than Speedy Gonzales" (another lie from the retarded right) Stay focused.

while you might be LEGALLY accurate do you really think it adds anything to the debate? Liek it or not, pretty much everyone refers to boat people as 'illegals' and its pretty hard to disagree with them. They arrive ILLEGALLY and claiming asylum might technically negate that but it is really peripheral to the debate.

The VAST number of people object to people coming here thru illegal means and then trying to stay here. The problem isnt eliminated by some semantic debate.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:36pm:

Visa overstayers are irrelevant to the boat people topic, just a pathetic deflection from leftards to cover up this billion dollar debacle caused by myopic labor.

Nope.  Wrong again.

The retarded right always uses the term "illegal immigrants" first.

Those on the left never bring it up first, because they know it is, as you have stated, irrelevant in regard to boat people.

However, when the retarded right insist on mentioning that term we on the left need to set them straight (most are fairly slow learners).

So, we have to explain to these dopey dimwits that visa overstayers are in fact illegal immigrants, not asylum seekers.

Understand now, or are you one of those even slower learners?  Hmmm?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:36pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:25pm: Visa overstayers are irrelevant to the boat people topic, just a pathetic deflection from leftards to cover up this billion dollar debacle caused by myopic labor. Nope.  Wrong again. The retarded right always use the term "illegal immigrants" first. Those on the left never bring it up first, because they know it is, as you have stated, irrelevant in regard to boat people. However, when the retarded right insist on mentioning that term we on the left need to set them straight (most are fairly slow learners). So, we have to explain to these dopey dimwits that visa overstayers are in fact illegal immigrants, not asylum seekers. Understand now, or are you one of those even slower learners?  Hmmm?

visa overstayers are JUST visa overstayers. they dont have any migration status at all. dont distort the truth. And you claim that the left dont distort the facts really does your otherwise valuable contributions no good.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:28pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:56pm: LOL, its just sooooooooo easy to make armpits arguments look stupid. if that were true, then it shoudl be easy for YOU to do it. But you never do. your ONLY response is abuse.

Pointing out an argument is stupid is not abuse, you should be familiar with that, all of your arguments fit into that category.When they are not pure abuse,of courser,longtimeliar. no wonder you got sacked as a mod, you cant even work that out.

Quote:

Labor telling lies over latest boat

Why would anyone lie about that?

What no chance she made a mistake or got it wrong?

As expected a pathetic dishonest title.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:36pm:

while you might be LEGALLY accurate do you really think it adds anything to the debate?

Yes, most certainly.

Calling them "illegal immigrants" is an attempt to muddy the waters.

It adds nothing to the debate.

In order to be taken seriously one must base an argument on facts, not lies.

Any argument on boat people that starts out with "These illegal immigrants ... " is based on lies, and therefore cannot be taken seriously.

If opponents to asylum seekers want to be taken seriously, they need to familiarise themselves with the facts first.

Boat people are legal asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants.  Big difference.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:36pm: while you might be LEGALLY accurate do you really think it adds anything to the debate? Yes, most certainly. Calling them "illegal immigrants" is an attempt to muddy the waters. It adds nothing to the debate. In order to be taken seriously one must base an argument on facts, not lies. Any argument on boat people that starts out with "These illegal immigrants ... " is based on lies, and therefore cannot be taken seriously. If opponents to asylum seekers want to be taken seriously, they need to familiarise themselves with the facts first. Boat people are legal asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants.  Big difference.

actually, it matters not a jot. it matters in,the legal course of events but in case you missed the point of the entire debate, it is about keeping them out in the first place.

yes you are technically correct but it is meaningless in the context of keeping people out. And as anyone who has ever been involved in the law or its processes would know, legal terminology is often quite different to community expectations. crimes such as assualt and rape have such a range that  many people would object to some of the ultra-low-level definitions.

You can keep shouting that they are LEGAL asylum seekers all you like, but you are arguing the wrong point. No body cares if they are legal or illegal by some pedantic defintion. We dont want boat people at all. THAT is the issue. and the community believes that people who come to the country without permission are 'illegal'. Like it or not, THAT is the definition that counts.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:38pm:

visa overstayers are JUST visa overstayers. they dont have any migration status at all. dont distort the truth. And you claim that the left dont distort the facts really does your otherwise valuable contributions no good.

Visa overstayers are indeed classified as illegal immigrants. Fact.

Boat people are not.  Fact.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 12:11pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 12:05pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 11:57am: Wrong - all you are guilty of is overstaying the length of time your visa is valid for. That does NOT make you an illegal immigrant. Incorrect (once again).  You really are ignorant on these matters, aren't you? http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050 Visa overstayers = illegal immigrants. Boat people claiming asylum = legal asylum seekers. Do a little research before making a bigger fool of yourself.   ;) Ever worked in Customs or the Immigration Dept? I have - I worked in Customs for 7.5 years. A person who overstays their visa is guilty of that only. Depending on the circumstances, most people are given their marching orders and told to be on a plane or they face jail and/or fines. The vast majority are outta here faster than Speedy Gonzales. Boat people who claim asylum are legally entitled to do so, however they are also detained for having breached immigration laws by arriving without a passport and visa until their claim has been assessed. If their claim is rejected, they are deported. It's really THAT simple.

most people are given their marching orders and told to be on a plane or they face jail and/or fines.

They not illegal but they are going to be put in jaol or fined by the imigration department????????

Looks to be somewhat contradictory.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:49pm:

We dont want boat people at all.

Don't include me in that "we".

I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers.

What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:49pm:

We dont want boat people at all.

How do you know that? 

Frances wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. How do you know that?

He means the conga line of xenophobes dont want boat people at all. I'm happy to take our fair share like the rest of the world, its a pity we dont. Both major parties should be ashamed at bowing to the minority xenophobes.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need?

I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. In fact, given that this nation has signed up to a charter saying that we will do so, I demand that we do exactly what we've said we would do.

Quote:

Liek it or not, pretty much everyone refers to boat people as 'illegals' and its pretty hard to disagree with them.

No just the brainwashed idiots that listen to the yankstyle  media advertising and propaganda


Quote:

actually, it matters not a jot.

If it doesnt matter why do you keep doing it?

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:49pm:

We dont want boat people at all.

Better round up all the descendants of the first fleet and ship them out for a start?

Go back and stamp the process out at the root - back when the first boat people arrived with no documentation.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need?

The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 1:54pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need?

so finally you make a point. you dont mind them? fine. Dont presume that is sufficient reason for anyone else.  My objection is that there arent a few thousand wanting to come here. there are MILLIONS. you dont think that is a particualrly vexing problem? We already take genuine refugees. Whats to stop them coming thru official channels like everyone else?

Since you love to use the legal/illegal distinction then perhaps you have noticed that pretty much no one objects to them coming thru official ie LEGAL means but have a very big problem with coming by ILLEGAL means. And not even you can redefine the means they use to get her as 'legal' as it is not.

join the queue? no problem.
come illegalyy? we will boot you into detention

simple really. and quite fair.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:09pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology.

Facts.

They are legal asylum seekers.

What do you have against legal asylum seekers?

What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need?

Question too hard for you?

I certainly do acknowledge that a lot of people call them illegal immigrants.  I also acknowledge that those people are complete morons.

The fact is though, they are not illegal immigrants.

Now, ask these two questions and note the different answers you'll get:

1. do you advocate helping illegal immigrants?

2. do you advocate helping legal asylum seekers?

See the difference?  I would answer "no" to number 1.

Understand now?     ::)

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:13pm:

Since you love to use the legal/illegal distinction then perhaps you have noticed that pretty much no one objects to them coming thru official ie LEGAL means but have a very big problem with coming by ILLEGAL means. And not even you can redefine the means they use to get her as 'legal' as it is not.

Your ignorance is astounding.

There is no "official" means of becoming an asylum seeker.

There is no application process in order to become an asylum seeker.

There is no queue to join in order to become an asylum seeker.

You are confusing 'refugee' with 'asylum seeker'. 

Coming to Australia by boat, with no visa, is perfectly legitimate if one claims asylum.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:09pm:

The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals.

Yes, but they are 100% wrong.

Asylum seekers coming by boat with no visas are not illegal immigrants.  Simple fact.

Furthermore, the majority are granted genuine refugee status.

What is it about facts that you don't like? 

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers. What do you have against legal asylum seekers? What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? Question too hard for you? I certainly do acknowledge that a lot of people call them illegal immigrants.  I also acknowledge that those people are complete morons. The fact is though, they are not illegal immigrants. Now, ask these two questions and note the different answers you'll get: 1. do you advocate helping illegal immigrants? 2. do you advocate helping legal asylum seekers? See the difference?  I would answer "no" to number 1. Understand now?     ::)

you are STILL playing with definitions which is pointless. refugees need to come by legal and established means. is that too really much to ask?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. Yes, but they are 100% wrong. Asylum seekers coming by boat with no visas are not illegal immigrants.  Simple fact. Furthermore, the majority are granted genuine refugee status. What is it about facts that you don't like?

what is it that prevents you from understanding that these legal definitions DONT AFFECT the debate? no body cares about them,. the debate is always around coming to australia illegally (which they are) and how we control that flow since the number who want to come here is in the millions.

This isnt a legal problem. it is a practical one. Care to join the deabte where it is actually taking place?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:35pm:

you are STILL playing with definitions which is pointless. refugees need to come by legal and established means. is that too really much to ask?

They do! Is it too much to ask that you understand that?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:37pm:

This isnt a legal problem. it is a practical one.

So, why do those on the retarded right insist on using the term "illegal immigrants"?  Hmmm?

And, asylum seekers are not the practical problem: visa overstayers are.

"THERE are enough illegal immigrants living in Australia to fill a large regional city, and nearly all of these 58,400 people arrive by plane.

"There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat."

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050

So, as you can see, boat people (legal asylum seekers) are not the practical problem: visa overstayers (illegal immigrants who arrive by plane) are the problem.

Having established those facts, why are you so concerned with the relatively small number of legal asylum seekers coming to Australia?  Why aren't you concerned with the large number of illegal immigrants coming by plane?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:35pm:

you are STILL playing with definitions which is pointless. refugees need to come by legal and established means. is that too really much to ask?

There are no "established means" for asylum seekers.

Once again, you are confusing 'asylum seekers' with 'refugees'.

Please pay attention:

* One must apply for refugee status.  There are strict processes in place.

* One does not (and can not) apply for asylum seeker status.  No such process exists.

Is any of this getting through?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:37pm: This isnt a legal problem. it is a practical one. So, why do those on the retarded right insist on using the term "illegal immigrants"?  Hmmm? And, asylum seekers are not the practical problem: visa overstayers are. "THERE are enough illegal immigrants living in Australia to fill a large regional city, and nearly all of these 58,400 people arrive by plane. "There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat." http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050 So, as you can see, boat people (legal asylum seekers) are not the practical problem: visa overstayers (illegal immigrants who arrive by plane) are the problem. Having established those facts, why are you so concerned with the relatively small number of legal asylum seekers coming to Australia?  Why aren't you concerned with the large number of illegal immigrants coming by plane?

so you are intent on playing with definitions insted of debating the actual topic? this is why you are losing the debate nation-wide. YOU DONT GET IT and nore does labor.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:37pm: This isnt a legal problem. it is a practical one. So, why do those on the retarded right insist on using the term "illegal immigrants"?  Hmmm? And, asylum seekers are not the practical problem: visa overstayers are. "THERE are enough illegal immigrants living in Australia to fill a large regional city, and nearly all of these 58,400 people arrive by plane. "There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat." http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/illegal-immigrants-arrive-by-plane/story-e6frea6u-1226200568050 So, as you can see, boat people (legal asylum seekers) are not the practical problem: visa overstayers (illegal immigrants who arrive by plane) are the problem. Having established those facts, why are you so concerned with the relatively small number of legal asylum seekers coming to Australia?  Why aren't you concerned with the large number of illegal immigrants coming by plane? so you are intent on playing with definitions insted of debating the actual topic? this is why you are losing the debate nation-wide. YOU DONT GET IT and nore does labor.

Until you learn the correct "definitions", you don't even have an argument.

So, what about an answer to my question?  Why are you only concerned with the small number of boat people and not the large number of illegal immigrants arriving by plane?

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

so you are intent on playing with definitions insted of debating the actual topic? this is why you are losing the debate nation-wide. YOU DONT GET IT and nore does labor.

Hah! If anyone doesn't understand the topic, I'd be inclined to say it was you.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 4:33pm:

YOU DONT GET IT and nore does labor.

It seems you "don't get it".

Did you miss this bit:

"There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat."

No comment on that little fact?  Hmmm?

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 4:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:33pm: YOU DONT GET IT and nore does labor. It seems you "don't get it". Did you miss this bit: "There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat." No comment on that little fact?  Hmmm?

more playing around with definitions and words while avoidling the actual topic. A true labor supporter in full flight: epic denial.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 5:12pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:33pm: YOU DONT GET IT and nore does labor. It seems you "don't get it". Did you miss this bit: "There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat." No comment on that little fact?  Hmmm? more playing around with definitions and words while avoidling the actual topic. A true labor supporter in full flight: epic denial.

LOL

"playing around with definitions and words"?  It's a fact, you Bozo.

The very first line in this thread mentions "boatload" and " illegal immigrants".

I'm right on topic: "There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat."

What do you have to say about it?

Nothing?  You support illegal immigrants do you?  Moron.

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 13^th, 2012 at 5:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 13th, 2012 at 5:12pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 4:33pm: YOU DONT GET IT and nore does labor. It seems you "don't get it". Did you miss this bit: "There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat." No comment on that little fact?  Hmmm? more playing around with definitions and words while avoidling the actual topic. A true labor supporter in full flight: epic denial. LOL "playing around with definitions and words"?  It's a fact, you Bozo. The very first line in this thread mentions "boatload" and " illegal immigrants". I'm right on topic: "There are 13 times more illegal immigrants than there are asylum seekers in detention who have arrived by boat." What do you have to say about it? Nothing?  You support illegal immigrants do you?  Moron.

Call them whatever you wish. Call the illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, country shoppers - whatever. It doesn't change the undeniable, undebatable FACT that under the Rudd and now Gillard governments, the number of people smuggling boats being intercepted has exploded. You could count on one hand the number of boats to arrive in a year under the Pacific Solution of John Howard's government. You need a calculator just to add up arrivals in a week under Gillard. Labor has failed. Labor has given up control of our borders and people smugglers laugh at us. This is a mess that is entirely of Labor's creation. They know what it will take to fix it but refuse to do so because it would mean returning to a Coalition policy. It's a pity that so many people have to die because Gillard is to embarrassed to admit she got it so very badly wrong.

Two more - that's 13 boats in the first 13 days of June...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/two-more-asylum-seeker-boats-intercepted/story-e6freuzr-1226394491282

The Sri Lankan Navy has stopped a boat that was leaving its shores for Australia...

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/sri-lanka-stops-boat-headed-for-australia/story-e6freuyi-1226394743292

I see no one has had anything to say about my comment regarding Labor's failure on border security, no matter what you call those people in the boats. Why? Because you know what I said was correct!  :)


"Call them whatever you wish. Call the illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, country shoppers - whatever. It doesn't change the undeniable, undebatable FACT that under the Rudd and now Gillard governments, the number of people smuggling boats being intercepted has exploded. You could count on one hand the number of boats to arrive in a year under the Pacific Solution of John Howard's government. You need a calculator just to add up arrivals in a week under Gillard. Labor has failed. Labor has given up control of our borders and people smugglers laugh at us. This is a mess that is entirely of Labor's creation. They know what it will take to fix it but refuse to do so because it would mean returning to a Coalition policy. It's a pity that so many people have to die because Gillard is to embarrassed to admit she got it so very badly wrong."

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 14^th, 2012 at 6:46am:

I see no one has had anything to say about my comment regarding Labor's failure on border security, no matter what you call those people in the boats. Why? Because you know what I said was correct!  :) "Call them whatever you wish. Call the illegal immigrants, asylum seekers, country shoppers - whatever. It doesn't change the undeniable, undebatable FACT that under the Rudd and now Gillard governments, the number of people smuggling boats being intercepted has exploded. You could count on one hand the number of boats to arrive in a year under the Pacific Solution of John Howard's government. You need a calculator just to add up arrivals in a week under Gillard. Labor has failed. Labor has given up control of our borders and people smugglers laugh at us. This is a mess that is entirely of Labor's creation. They know what it will take to fix it but refuse to do so because it would mean returning to a Coalition policy. It's a pity that so many people have to die because Gillard is to embarrassed to admit she got it so very badly wrong."

And yet the number is still less than the amount of actual illegal immigrants.

SOB

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 3:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers.

Except we don't know who they are because they have destroyed their IDs.

How do you know they are telling the truth? You have no way of identifying them and so you have no way of verifying what they say. Fact.


They can give you a well-rehearsed story about someone else and you wouldn't know whether they are lying or not. Fact.

SO you give them the benefit of doubt. Others don't because they are aware that there is a racket going with this no-name asylum caper.

If they ask for asylum then they are asylum seekers.

SOB

what are Sri Lankans seeking asylum from???

Big Clive has the answer.

No more boats.

cods wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 5:52am:

what are Sri Lankans seeking asylum from???

I dunno, probably from a lack of wi-fi in their native country?

Soren wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers. Except we don't know who they are because they have destroyed their IDs. How do you know they are telling the truth? You have no way of identifying them and so you have no way of verifying what they say. Fact. They can give you a well-rehearsed story about someone else and you wouldn't know whether they are lying or not. Fact. SO you give them the benefit of doubt. Others don't because they are aware that there is a racket going with this no-name asylum caper.

That's right, I have no idea if they are telling the truth.

It's not me giving them the benefit of the doubt, it's the law. 

Once they say that they are claiming asylum, they are legal asylum seekers.  There is no process or application procedure to become an asylum seeker.  There is to become a refugee, but not to become an asylum seeker.

I'm merely explaining to you that it's not terminology, but a matter of law: they are legal asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants.

another boat in trouble this time in Indonesian waters... phew!! the Indonesians are calling on merchant ships in the area to help... sad but true.

Soren wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2012 at 7:01pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers. Except we don't know who they are because they have destroyed their IDs. How do you know they are telling the truth? You have no way of identifying them and so you have no way of verifying what they say. Fact. They can give you a well-rehearsed story about someone else and you wouldn't know whether they are lying or not. Fact. SO you give them the benefit of doubt. Others don't because they are aware that there is a racket going with this no-name asylum caper.

thats another fallicy perpetrated by the liberal government ...while some do throw away passports ... most retain some form of ID. Thorwing away everything means they risk spending years in detention ...

John Smith wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 11:56am:

Soren wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers. Except we don't know who they are because they have destroyed their IDs. How do you know they are telling the truth? You have no way of identifying them and so you have no way of verifying what they say. Fact. They can give you a well-rehearsed story about someone else and you wouldn't know whether they are lying or not. Fact. SO you give them the benefit of doubt. Others don't because they are aware that there is a racket going with this no-name asylum caper. thats another fallicy perpetrated by the liberal government ...while some do throw away passports ... most retain some form of ID. Thorwing away everything means they risk spending years in detention ...

3200 out of 3237 boat people surveyed ,almost 99% of them admitted to disposing of their passports after flying into Indonesia with a passport

Its on the Labor minister's website so why does this become a fallacy by the liberals,are labor supporters ignorant or stupid or a combination of both?
Linky-http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/cb/2012/cb182430.htm

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 4^th, 2012 at 12:31pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 11:56am: Soren wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers. Except we don't know who they are because they have destroyed their IDs. How do you know they are telling the truth? You have no way of identifying them and so you have no way of verifying what they say. Fact. They can give you a well-rehearsed story about someone else and you wouldn't know whether they are lying or not. Fact. SO you give them the benefit of doubt. Others don't because they are aware that there is a racket going with this no-name asylum caper. thats another fallicy perpetrated by the liberal government ...while some do throw away passports ... most retain some form of ID. Thorwing away everything means they risk spending years in detention ... 3200 out of 3237 boat people surveyed ,almost 99% of them admitted to disposing of their passports after flying into Indonesia with a passport Its on the Labor minister's website so why does this become a fallacy by the liberals,are labor supporters ignorant or stupid or a combination of both? Linky-http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/cb/2012/cb182430.htm

It seems that you are stupid and ignorant ... and incapable of basic English ... I did say some throw away passports (highlighted) ... BUT MOST have some other form of identification ... drivers license, library membership, swingers club membership ,.... OTHER

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 6:09am:

Labor has been caught with its pants down after the AFP contradicted what Home Affairs Minister Jason Clare told reporters about the "interception" of the latest boatload of illegal immigrants. Oh, by the way - that's 11 boats in 11 days and that makes it well over 700 people this month already.

What would you post about if the boats actually stopped?

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2012 at 2:22pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 12:31pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 11:56am: Soren wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers. Except we don't know who they are because they have destroyed their IDs. How do you know they are telling the truth? You have no way of identifying them and so you have no way of verifying what they say. Fact. They can give you a well-rehearsed story about someone else and you wouldn't know whether they are lying or not. Fact. SO you give them the benefit of doubt. Others don't because they are aware that there is a racket going with this no-name asylum caper. thats another fallicy perpetrated by the liberal government ...while some do throw away passports ... most retain some form of ID. Thorwing away everything means they risk spending years in detention ... 3200 out of 3237 boat people surveyed ,almost 99% of them admitted to disposing of their passports after flying into Indonesia with a passport Its on the Labor minister's website so why does this become a fallacy by the liberals,are labor supporters ignorant or stupid or a combination of both? Linky-http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/cb/2012/cb182430.htm It seems that you are stupid and ignorant ... and incapable of basic English ... I did say some throw away passports (highlighted) ... BUT MOST have some other form of identification ... drivers license, library membership, swingers club membership ,.... OTHER

You did say the fact that almost 99% of boat people surveyed destroyed their passports before coming to Australia was a fallacy perpetrated by the liberals when the truth is this information can be found on the Labor immigration ministers website.

The leftists have no shame in telling lies to cover up this  billion dollar debacle caused by a myopic labor PM.

The Crown must defend Australia's borders from invasion.

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 5^th, 2012 at 4:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 2:22pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 12:31pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 11:56am: Soren wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers. Except we don't know who they are because they have destroyed their IDs. How do you know they are telling the truth? You have no way of identifying them and so you have no way of verifying what they say. Fact. They can give you a well-rehearsed story about someone else and you wouldn't know whether they are lying or not. Fact. SO you give them the benefit of doubt. Others don't because they are aware that there is a racket going with this no-name asylum caper. thats another fallicy perpetrated by the liberal government ...while some do throw away passports ... most retain some form of ID. Thorwing away everything means they risk spending years in detention ... 3200 out of 3237 boat people surveyed ,almost 99% of them admitted to disposing of their passports after flying into Indonesia with a passport Its on the Labor minister's website so why does this become a fallacy by the liberals,are labor supporters ignorant or stupid or a combination of both? Linky-http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/cb/2012/cb182430.htm It seems that you are stupid and ignorant ... and incapable of basic English ... I did say some throw away passports (highlighted) ... BUT MOST have some other form of identification ... drivers license, library membership, swingers club membership ,.... OTHER You did say the fact that almost 99% of boat people surveyed destroyed their passports before coming to Australia was a fallacy perpetrated by the liberals when the truth is this information can be found on the Labor immigration ministers website. The leftists have no shame in telling lies to cover up this  billion dollar debacle caused by a myopic labor PM.

I never said any such thing ... no wonder you righties think everything is a lie ... you hear all these imaginary voices in your head and then can't understand when real people don't do what those voices told you ...

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2012 at 6:40pm:

Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 2:22pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 12:31pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 11:56am: Soren wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers. Except we don't know who they are because they have destroyed their IDs. How do you know they are telling the truth? You have no way of identifying them and so you have no way of verifying what they say. Fact. They can give you a well-rehearsed story about someone else and you wouldn't know whether they are lying or not. Fact. SO you give them the benefit of doubt. Others don't because they are aware that there is a racket going with this no-name asylum caper. thats another fallicy perpetrated by the liberal government ...while some do throw away passports ... most retain some form of ID. Thorwing away everything means they risk spending years in detention ... 3200 out of 3237 boat people surveyed ,almost 99% of them admitted to disposing of their passports after flying into Indonesia with a passport Its on the Labor minister's website so why does this become a fallacy by the liberals,are labor supporters ignorant or stupid or a combination of both? Linky-http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/cb/2012/cb182430.htm It seems that you are stupid and ignorant ... and incapable of basic English ... I did say some throw away passports (highlighted) ... BUT MOST have some other form of identification ... drivers license, library membership, swingers club membership ,.... OTHER You did say the fact that almost 99% of boat people surveyed destroyed their passports before coming to Australia was a fallacy perpetrated by the liberals when the truth is this information can be found on the Labor immigration ministers website. The leftists have no shame in telling lies to cover up this  billion dollar debacle caused by a myopic labor PM. I never said any such thing ... no wonder you righties think everything is a lie ... you hear all these imaginary voices in your head and then can't understand when real people don't do what those voices told you ...

Maybe you need help with the word 'some'. If you need help after research, I am here to help. All you gotta do is ask.

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 5^th, 2012 at 6:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 6:40pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 2:22pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 12:31pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 11:56am: Soren wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers. Except we don't know who they are because they have destroyed their IDs. How do you know they are telling the truth? You have no way of identifying them and so you have no way of verifying what they say. Fact. They can give you a well-rehearsed story about someone else and you wouldn't know whether they are lying or not. Fact. SO you give them the benefit of doubt. Others don't because they are aware that there is a racket going with this no-name asylum caper. thats another fallicy perpetrated by the liberal government ...while some do throw away passports ... most retain some form of ID. Thorwing away everything means they risk spending years in detention ... 3200 out of 3237 boat people surveyed ,almost 99% of them admitted to disposing of their passports after flying into Indonesia with a passport Its on the Labor minister's website so why does this become a fallacy by the liberals,are labor supporters ignorant or stupid or a combination of both? Linky-http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/cb/2012/cb182430.htm It seems that you are stupid and ignorant ... and incapable of basic English ... I did say some throw away passports (highlighted) ... BUT MOST have some other form of identification ... drivers license, library membership, swingers club membership ,.... OTHER You did say the fact that almost 99% of boat people surveyed destroyed their passports before coming to Australia was a fallacy perpetrated by the liberals when the truth is this information can be found on the Labor immigration ministers website. The leftists have no shame in telling lies to cover up this  billion dollar debacle caused by a myopic labor PM. I never said any such thing ... no wonder you righties think everything is a lie ... you hear all these imaginary voices in your head and then can't understand when real people don't do what those voices told you ... Maybe you need help with the word 'some'. If you need help after research, I am here to help. All you gotta do is ask.

welcome to the debate stupid ... if you have to get involved at least read the previous posts before you open your mouth ... where did I say what Baronvort claims I have said ... or have you voices in your head as well?

John Smith wrote on Jul 5^th, 2012 at 6:50pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 6:47pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 6:40pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 4:24pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 5th, 2012 at 2:22pm: Baronvonrort wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 12:31pm: John Smith wrote on Jul 4th, 2012 at 11:56am: Soren wrote on Jul 3rd, 2012 at 7:01pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 3:09pm: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:54pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 1:49pm: We dont want boat people at all. Don't include me in that "we". I have no problem with assisting legal asylum seekers. What is it about helping legal asylum seekers that bothers you?  What do you have against assisting fellow humans in need? The point - which you fail to acknowledge - is that most people DO consider them illegals. And their argument is rather compelling. You dont gain anything by an argument such as yours which is entirely one of terminology. Facts. They are legal asylum seekers. Except we don't know who they are because they have destroyed their IDs. How do you know they are telling the truth? You have no way of identifying them and so you have no way of verifying what they say. Fact. They can give you a well-rehearsed story about someone else and you wouldn't know whether they are lying or not. Fact. SO you give them the benefit of doubt. Others don't because they are aware that there is a racket going with this no-name asylum caper. thats another fallicy perpetrated by the liberal government ...while some do throw away passports ... most retain some form of ID. Thorwing away everything means they risk spending years in detention ... 3200 out of 3237 boat people surveyed ,almost 99% of them admitted to disposing of their passports after flying into Indonesia with a passport Its on the Labor minister's website so why does this become a fallacy by the liberals,are labor supporters ignorant or stupid or a combination of both? Linky-http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/cb/2012/cb182430.htm It seems that you are stupid and ignorant ... and incapable of basic English ... I did say some throw away passports (highlighted) ... BUT MOST have some other form of identification ... drivers license, library membership, swingers club membership ,.... OTHER You did say the fact that almost 99% of boat people surveyed destroyed their passports before coming to Australia was a fallacy perpetrated by the liberals when the truth is this information can be found on the Labor immigration ministers website. The leftists have no shame in telling lies to cover up this  billion dollar debacle caused by a myopic labor PM. I never said any such thing ... no wonder you righties think everything is a lie ... you hear all these imaginary voices in your head and then can't understand when real people don't do what those voices told you ... Maybe you need help with the word 'some'. If you need help after research, I am here to help. All you gotta do is ask. welcome to the debate stupid ... if you have to get involved at least read the previous posts before you open your mouth ... where did I say what Baronvort claims I have said ... or have you voices in your head as well?

Dont mind me. I am here to help is all.

You said

Quote:

It seems that you are stupid and ignorant ... and incapable of basic English ... I did say some throw away passports (highlighted) ... BUT MOST have some other form of identification ... drivers license, library membership, swingers club membership ,.... OTHER

Just helping, not debating. ie the word some, would be most

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12^th, 2012 at 6:31am:

Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday baulked at explaining the discrepancies. "I'll wait until we've got the full advice from relevant authorities," she said. Gotta love Jules - she has all the advice she needs from the ALP but is stalling so her spin doctors can come up with some kind of lie or excuse to explain why it's not really yet another lie from her government.

Well she could have raced out and implemented a racist policy to destroy peoples lives while accusing them of intentionally throwing their children overboard and then calling an election in an atmosphere of fear and bigoted ignorance.

nairbe wrote on Jul 5^th, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jun 12th, 2012 at 6:31am: Prime Minister Julia Gillard yesterday baulked at explaining the discrepancies. "I'll wait until we've got the full advice from relevant authorities," she said. Gotta love Jules - she has all the advice she needs from the ALP but is stalling so her spin doctors can come up with some kind of lie or excuse to explain why it's not really yet another lie from her government. Well she could have raced out and implemented a racist policy to destroy peoples lives while accusing them of intentionally throwing their children overboard and then calling an election in an atmosphere of fear and bigoted ignorance.

Well. Yeah. Theres that.

SOB