Quote:

Mr Katter also said opposition leader Tony Abbott could only claim the previous Liberal government was successful in reducing the number of asylum seeker boats towards the end of its term because it turned them back to Indonesia, and called on him come up with a better policy. "There is as much chance of Indonesia taking a boat back now as I've got of becoming an astronaut and going to Mars.''

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/group-of-asylum-seekers-who-reached-mainland-wanted-to-go-to-new-zealand/story-fncynjr2-1226617932866

Even Katter can destroy the rightards constant broken record argument about asylum policy.

As Katter correctly points out, the boats stopped under Howard only because the boats were turned back. Nauru+TPVs (the pacific slution) did diddly squat - and in fact was implemented after the boats had already stopped.

And now that we know the boats cannot be turned back again, Katter is right to ask the quesiton - 1. why does the coalition continue the lie that they will? and 2. Why doesn't the coalition come up with any alternative ideas?

why dont we just exit the UN, seriously what does it do for us, it is a massive drain on our finances, hell they get 10% of the carbon tax revenue.

All they do is hold their hand out for money.

Bob who?  :D

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

And now that we know the boats cannot be turned back again

Yes they can, the useless incompetent  dopey leftists who are only good for giving us debt give up too easily.


Quote:

Sri Lanka's high commissioner to Australia says most Sri Lankans are economic migrants and not refugees. Sri Lanka will welcome asylum seeker boats turned around by Australian authorities the country's high commissioner to Australia says. Reed more here at this leftist source-www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1755142/Sri-Lanka-welcomes-asylum-boat-returns

I think the rules are that you have to turn them around before they enter your territory.

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

I think the rules are that you have to turn them around before they enter your territory.

which according to former defence force chief, would amount to an act of piracy - illegal under international law.


Quote:

But Admiral Chris Barrie says if Australian authorities try to board and redirect a boat found in international waters, that could break international piracy law. "The question will be, is that vessel in some sort of peril or is it not?" he said. "If the boat itself is well-found and it appears to be exercising freedoms of the high seas, a right to board is very much constrained under international law, and there would be some circumstances, I guess, where it might become an act of piracy.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-11/turning-back-boats-an-act-of-piracy/4623590

But then again, since when did the libs give two hoots about international law?  :-/

woof woof wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:40pm:

why dont we just exit the UN, seriously what does it do for us, it is a massive drain on our finances, hell they get 10% of the carbon tax revenue. All they do is hold their hand out for money.

maybe you cn bring it up at your next liberal party convention?

Bob Katter also said we should have about 100 patrol boats out there with cruise missiles bolted onto them for "self-defence". This guy is a nutter. I can't fathom why anyone would vote Labor in September and I REALLY cannot comprehend why anyone would vote for this drop-kick.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:29pm:

Bob Katter also said we should have about 100 patrol boats out there with cruise missiles bolted onto them for "self-defence". This guy is a nutter. I can't fathom why anyone would vote Labor in September and I REALLY cannot comprehend why anyone would vote for this drop-kick.

true, he is a nutter ... and even he can see that Abbott is full of sh1t ... and yet you can't, if he's a nutter (and we both agree he is)  how crazy are you?

If you though about it for a minute you would realise that we have boats launched by people smugglers from Indonesia because Indonesia, being a country corrupt to the core, allows this to happen. People smugglers are operating in Indonesia for no other reason but because Indonesia allows them to operate.
Australia needs to make an offer to Indonesia that they cannot refuse - you fvckers cooperate or the aid is gone. Indonesians have to be pressed to make a choice - let the local corrupt authorities turn a blind eye to vessels leaving Indonesia without being cleared by their authorities an pocket the bakshish- or keep Australia (and its billion dollar aid program, its bakshish) on side and throw the local corrupt bastards under the bus.

Remember - you have to be cleared by customs and immigration when you leave a country, not just when you enter it. The Indonesian fvckers have been getting away with playing both sides of the street for far, far too long. They need to have the blowtorch to the belly. Abbott will go to Jakarta and tell them just that.

That's what did the trick under Howard, not the song and dance you hear on the news about Temporary protection visa and turning back the boats.

The key is lighting the fire under bangbang's arse. That's the only languiage these bastards understand.

Soren wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

If you though about it for a minute you would realise that we have boats launched by people smugglers from Indonesia because Indonesia, being a country corrupt to the core, allows this to happen. People smugglers are operating in Indonesia for no other reason but because Indonesia allows them to operate. Australia needs to make an offer to Indonesia that they cannot refuse - you fvckers cooperate or the aid is gone. Indonesians have to be pressed to make a choice - let the local corrupt authorities turn a blind eye to vessels leaving Indonesia without being cleared by their authorities an pocket the bakshish- or keep Australia (and its billion dollar aid program, its bakshish) on side and throw the local corrupt bastards under the bus. Remember - you have to be cleared by customs and immigration when you leave a country, not just when you enter it. The Indonesian fvckers have been getting away with playing both sides of the street for far, far too long. They need to have the blowtorch to the belly. That's what did the trick under Howard, not the song and dance you hear on the news.

So you don't think Tony's 'stop the boats' slogans will work? but he's already had big billboards made up ready to install in Darwin harbour as soon as he takes office ...

He will stop the boats.
By making the Indonesians stop the boats.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 8:14pm:

which according to former defence force chief, would amount to an act of piracy - illegal under international law.

So presumably if that was the case, the asylum-seekers would be quite justified in
defending themselves against such piracy, as is anyone else on the open ocean?

Or do the xenophobes suggest (as usual) that the rules don't or shouldn't apply to them?

Prolly another reason it was stopped too. I doubt anybody who is spouting the "howards idea worked" slogan is going to admit that though.

SOB

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:29pm:

Bob Katter also said we should have about 100 patrol boats out there with cruise missiles bolted onto them for "self-defence". This guy is a nutter. I can't fathom why anyone would vote Labor in September and I REALLY cannot comprehend why anyone would vote for this drop-kick.

Care to direct everyone to the link, I live not far from his electorate and have pretty much heard everything he has ever said; this bit of info has escaped me. Never heard anyone ever even mention it (other than you), not the local paper, unusual for a military town.  Not one of my friends who have served and continue to serve have said anything; they may also appreciate the humorous story.

I would very much appreciate a link.

Kat wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 8:14pm: which according to former defence force chief, would amount to an act of piracy - illegal under international law. So presumably if that was the case, the asylum-seekers would be quite justified in defending themselves against such piracy, as is anyone else on the open ocean? Or do the xenophobes suggest (as usual) that the rules don't or shouldn't apply to them?

You do realise when the navy boards a vessel they are armed to the teeth, just in case.


So the reffos would be smarter to just turn around rather than to try and 'defend' themselves

BigOl64 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 6:10am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:29pm: Bob Katter also said we should have about 100 patrol boats out there with cruise missiles bolted onto them for "self-defence". This guy is a nutter. I can't fathom why anyone would vote Labor in September and I REALLY cannot comprehend why anyone would vote for this drop-kick. Care to direct everyone to the link, I live not far from his electorate and have pretty much heard everything he has ever said; this bit of info has escaped me. Never heard anyone ever even mention it (other than you), not the local paper, unusual for a military town.  Not one of my friends who have served and continue to serve have said anything; they may also appreciate the humorous story. I would very much appreciate a link.

Here ya go found it.

As I have read it, it is less about reffos and more about illegal fishing boats and other incurrsions, but your rant is good too.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/group-of-asylum-seekers-who-reached-mainland-wanted-to-go-to-new-zealand/story-fncyva0b-1226617932866

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:34pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:29pm: Bob Katter also said we should have about 100 patrol boats out there with cruise missiles bolted onto them for "self-defence". This guy is a nutter. I can't fathom why anyone would vote Labor in September and I REALLY cannot comprehend why anyone would vote for this drop-kick. true, he is a nutter ... and even he can see that Abbott is full of sh1t ... and yet you can't, if he's a nutter (and we both agree he is)  how crazy are you?

Yet you'd rather stay with a woman, under whose leadership (hehehe), more than 30,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by boat and the debt had soared to record highs while yet another promised surplus failed to materialise and last but not least, who lied to the Australian people about the carbon dioxide tax? That's instead of giving a chance to a man who was part of a very successful government that paid back a Labor debt, produced one surplus after another, stopped the boats and under which Australians enjoyed much lower costs of living and higher employment. My friend, I'm not the crazy one!  ;D

BOB Katter wants missile-equipped boats to patrol waters for asylum seekers, but says the arms would be to help deal with other potential threats.

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/group-of-asylum-seekers-who-reached-mainland-wanted-to-go-to-new-zealand/story-fncynjr2-1226617932866#ixzz2QCBHTO00



would m issle loaded navy boats look provocative?????????? of course not.. :-/ ::) ::)

we worry about whale hunters yet its ok for us to wander the ocean with missiles..at the ready..

do you think! add the drones.. something could frighten the people smugglers..

there has to be an answer in there somewhere..

John Smith wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:59pm:

Soren wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:55pm: If you though about it for a minute you would realise that we have boats launched by people smugglers from Indonesia because Indonesia, being a country corrupt to the core, allows this to happen. People smugglers are operating in Indonesia for no other reason but because Indonesia allows them to operate. Australia needs to make an offer to Indonesia that they cannot refuse - you fvckers cooperate or the aid is gone. Indonesians have to be pressed to make a choice - let the local corrupt authorities turn a blind eye to vessels leaving Indonesia without being cleared by their authorities an pocket the bakshish- or keep Australia (and its billion dollar aid program, its bakshish) on side and throw the local corrupt bastards under the bus. Remember - you have to be cleared by customs and immigration when you leave a country, not just when you enter it. The Indonesian fvckers have been getting away with playing both sides of the street for far, far too long. They need to have the blowtorch to the belly. That's what did the trick under Howard, not the song and dance you hear on the news. So you don't think Tony's 'stop the boats' slogans will work? but he's already had big billboards made up ready to install in Darwin harbour as soon as he takes office ...

Where there's a will there's a way and, if all else fails, aiming a gun at the sky would serve as a warning.

The problem is that these wooden heads don't make inquiries before they pay out the dollars.

That is why they get dirty when they realise that they've been fooled by the smugglers, that we are not lined up, ready to embrace them.

So what do they do but go on the path of destroying detention quarters or sewing their lips?

How savage can they be to use a needle on their faces?

Soren wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

If you though about it for a minute you would realise that we have boats launched by people smugglers from Indonesia because Indonesia, being a country corrupt to the core, allows this to happen. People smugglers are operating in Indonesia for no other reason but because Indonesia allows them to operate. Australia needs to make an offer to Indonesia that they cannot refuse - you fvckers cooperate or the aid is gone. Indonesians have to be pressed to make a choice - let the local corrupt authorities turn a blind eye to vessels leaving Indonesia without being cleared by their authorities an pocket the bakshish- or keep Australia (and its billion dollar aid program, its bakshish) on side and throw the local corrupt bastards under the bus. Remember - you have to be cleared by customs and immigration when you leave a country, not just when you enter it. The Indonesian fvckers have been getting away with playing both sides of the street for far, far too long. They need to have the blowtorch to the belly. Abbott will go to Jakarta and tell them just that. That's what did the trick under Howard, not the song and dance you hear on the news about Temporary protection visa and turning back the boats. The key is lighting the fire under bangbang's arse. That's the only languiage these bastards understand.

You severly understimate the job of removing corruption from a third world country like Indonesia.

The mid to lower levels of government and police that are involved in corruption dont see a cent of any aid we send, so they are not going to care if we threaten to take it away.

If a people smuggler is charging $10k per person, on a 150 person boat, thats $1.5m of bribes available.  Good luck stopping that in a country where a copper probably gets $1000 a year.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:16am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:34pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:29pm: Bob Katter also said we should have about 100 patrol boats out there with cruise missiles bolted onto them for "self-defence". This guy is a nutter. I can't fathom why anyone would vote Labor in September and I REALLY cannot comprehend why anyone would vote for this drop-kick. true, he is a nutter ... and even he can see that Abbott is full of sh1t ... and yet you can't, if he's a nutter (and we both agree he is)  how crazy are you? Yet you'd rather stay with a woman, under whose leadership (hehehe), more than 30,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by boat ;D

13 times less illegal immigrants that arrived  via plane under the Rodent dictatorship. Good on you phony Tony's office bitch.

Soren wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 9:55pm:

If you though about it for a minute you would realise that we have boats launched by people smugglers from Indonesia because Indonesia, being a country corrupt to the core, allows this to happen. People smugglers are operating in Indonesia for no other reason but because Indonesia allows them to operate. Australia needs to make an offer to Indonesia that they cannot refuse - you fvckers cooperate or the aid is gone. Indonesians have to be pressed to make a choice - let the local corrupt authorities turn a blind eye to vessels leaving Indonesia without being cleared by their authorities an pocket the bakshish- or keep Australia (and its billion dollar aid program, its bakshish) on side and throw the local corrupt bastards under the bus. Remember - you have to be cleared by customs and immigration when you leave a country, not just when you enter it. The Indonesian fvckers have been getting away with playing both sides of the street for far, far too long. They need to have the blowtorch to the belly. Abbott will go to Jakarta and tell them just that. That's what did the trick under Howard, not the song and dance you hear on the news about Temporary protection visa and turning back the boats. The key is lighting the fire under bangbang's arse. That's the only languiage these bastards understand.

Not carpet bombing?

Shurely shome mishtake.

One final thing Soren, Indonesia dont want these people any more than you do. They are more than happy to take a few brown paper bags of cash to see the back of them.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:16am:

Yet you'd rather stay with a woman, under whose leadership (hehehe), more than 30,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by boat ...

And again, you're trying to demonise perfectly legal asylum seekers by using terms that are clearly incorrect.

Asylum seekers are neither illegal nor immigrants.

Your credibility ( :-/) drops a notch every time you persist with this "illegal immigrant" nonsense.

"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

skippy. wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:16am: John Smith wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:34pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:29pm: Bob Katter also said we should have about 100 patrol boats out there with cruise missiles bolted onto them for "self-defence". This guy is a nutter. I can't fathom why anyone would vote Labor in September and I REALLY cannot comprehend why anyone would vote for this drop-kick. true, he is a nutter ... and even he can see that Abbott is full of sh1t ... and yet you can't, if he's a nutter (and we both agree he is)  how crazy are you? Yet you'd rather stay with a woman, under whose leadership (hehehe), more than 30,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by boat ;D 13 times less illegal immigrants that arrived  via plane under the Rodent dictatorship. Good on you phony Tony's office bitch.

Those that arrived by plane and have overstayed their visa period are not costing taxpayers through collecting welfare payments, accomodation, food, TV's, computers, etc. Those illegal immigrants who arrived by boat are literally costing us billions of dollars. As for your quip about a dictatorship, Howard didn't attempt to blatantly censor the media, unlike Gillard/Conroy. You just got owned... again!!!  ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary

Sorry your wrong, anyone arriving here without the appropriate paperwork is illegal and will be detained.

They may claim Asylum, where people like you diverge from mainstream Australians is how we treat them. Most are happy to treat them like criminals (as I am) until they processed. Once they are processed then they need to be assessed.

They arrive here with the intention to immigrate using the Asylum Seeker avenue (potato Patarto) so again your just playing on words ...... and even being inaccurate in that regard.

The real issue is that we sign up to a convention that has no hard processing rules meaning we can detain people indefinitely.

Its the refugee convention that we need to reject and the UN needs to amend it so it has a better chance of succeeding, we should reject it as it just moves the UN's problems onto us. If the UN wants refugees handled in a certain way ...... then let them do it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:18pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:16am: Yet you'd rather stay with a woman, under whose leadership (hehehe), more than 30,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by boat ... And again, you're trying to demonise perfectly legal asylum seekers by using terms that are clearly incorrect. Asylum seekers are neither illegal nor immigrants. Your credibility ( :-/) drops a notch every time you persist with this "illegal immigrant" nonsense. "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

At least I have some credibility, unlike you. All you've got is whining about what to call these country-shoppers instead of offering a sensible solution that just might work (and no, Malaysia isn't a sensible solution). You've got NOTHING!!!  ;D ;D ;D

RightSadFred wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

greggerypeccary Sorry your wrong, anyone arriving here without the appropriate paperwork is illegal and will be detained. They may claim Asylum, where people like you diverge from mainstream Australians is how we treat them. Most are happy to treat them like criminals (as I am) until they processed. Once they are processed then they need to be assessed. They arrive here with the intention to immigrate using the Asylum Seeker avenue (potato Patarto) so again your just playing on words ...... and even being inaccurate in that regard. The real issue is that we sign up to a convention that has no hard processing rules meaning we can detain people indefinitely. Its the refugee convention that we need to reject and the UN needs to amend it so it has a better chance of succeeding, we should reject it as it just moves the UN's problems onto us. If the UN wants refugees handled in a certain way ...... then let them do it.

Exactly. The act of claiming asylum is not illegal. However, the act of attempting to (or in the case of 66 people from SL, actually landing on Australia) without appropriate documentation is a breach of our Customs and Immigration acts. I've never called them illegal asylum seekers - I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are.

Armchair_Politician

People who overstay visa's are clearly open to back ground checks and have been clearly identified, you are right, once we round them up we can send them back as they have breached their visa.

Why we can not dish out the same to boat arrivals is beyond me, if our signing up to the convention causes this cost impost then we should reject it entirely and introduce laws to tow boats back to where them came or repatriate these people back to where they cam from.

This is just the ALP pandering to the UN for reasons I don't understand.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:01pm:

At least I have some credibility,

No, you quite simply do not.

Your constant attempts to demonise legal asylum seekers make you look extremely foolish, and it clearly demonstrates that you have no compassion for these people at all.

Talk about saving them from drowning at sea is merely your smoke screen.  If you genuinely cared about them you wouldn't demonise them.

You're a fraud, and you've been exposed.

Sorry, that's just the way it is (baby).

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are.

And you're precisely 100% incorrect.

They are neither:

a) illegal, or
b) immigrants

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:10pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:03pm: I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are. And you're precisely 100% incorrect. They are neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants

The act of claiming asylum is not illegal. However, the act of attempting to (or in the case of 66 people from SL, actually landing on Australia) without appropriate documentation is a breach of our Customs and Immigration acts. I've never called them illegal asylum seekers - I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are until their application is processed. End of lesson.  :)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 7:16am:

John Smith wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:34pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:29pm: Bob Katter also said we should have about 100 patrol boats out there with cruise missiles bolted onto them for "self-defence". This guy is a nutter. I can't fathom why anyone would vote Labor in September and I REALLY cannot comprehend why anyone would vote for this drop-kick. true, he is a nutter ... and even he can see that Abbott is full of sh1t ... and yet you can't, if he's a nutter (and we both agree he is)  how crazy are you? Yet you'd rather stay with a woman, under whose leadership (hehehe), more than 30,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by boat we should allow more in and the debt had soared to record highs every debt is a record high ... I' used to buy potatoes for .20c a kg 20 yrs ago, now they are $2.50 kg .. a dollar just ddoesn't stretch as far while yet another promised surplus failed to materialise and last but not least, never been worried about a surplus ... as long as the economy keeps ticking over, we'll get there who lied to the Australian people about the carbon dioxide tax?no she didn't you just don't understand english That's instead of giving a chance to a man who was part of a very successful government that paid back a Labor debt, produced one surplus after another, stopped the boats and under which Australians enjoyed much lower costs of living and higher employment. Abbott? I'd rather have my pet cockatoo run the country My friend, I'm not the crazy one! doesn't quite get there does it ... maybe lunatic suits you better ;D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:59pm:

skippy. wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 1:35pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 7:16am: John Smith wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:34pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 9:29pm: Bob Katter also said we should have about 100 patrol boats out there with cruise missiles bolted onto them for "self-defence". This guy is a nutter. I can't fathom why anyone would vote Labor in September and I REALLY cannot comprehend why anyone would vote for this drop-kick. true, he is a nutter ... and even he can see that Abbott is full of sh1t ... and yet you can't, if he's a nutter (and we both agree he is)  how crazy are you? Yet you'd rather stay with a woman, under whose leadership (hehehe), more than 30,000 illegal immigrants have arrived by boat ;D 13 times less illegal immigrants that arrived  via plane under the Rodent dictatorship. Good on you phony Tony's office bitch. Those that arrived by plane and have overstayed their visa period are not costing taxpayers through collecting welfare payments, accomodation, food, TV's, computers, etc. Those illegal immigrants who arrived by boat are literally costing us billions of dollars. As for your quip about a dictatorship, Howard didn't attempt to blatantly censor the media, unlike Gillard/Conroy. You just got owned... again!!!  ;D ;D ;D

sure they do ... we pay police to find and arrest them, we pay jailers to jail them, we pay quantas to fly them home, we pay immigration officials to look over their case ... they often take jobs for cash in hand from another Australian, they don't pay taxes, they don't contribute to society, they send the money back overseas and so on and so on ...

open your eyes dipsh1t

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:03pm: I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are. And you're precisely 100% incorrect. They are neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants The act of claiming asylum is not illegal. However, the act of attempting to (or in the case of 66 people from SL, actually landing on Australia) without appropriate documentation is a breach of our Customs and Immigration acts. I've never called them illegal asylum seekers - I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are until their application is processed. End of lesson.  :)

;D ;D ;D ;D
;D ;D ;D ;D
:D :D :D :D
:D :D :D :D

freediver wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:54pm:

I think the rules are that you have to turn them around before they enter your territory.

On what legal basis?  Is that not an act of piracy?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:03pm: I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are. And you're precisely 100% incorrect. They are neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants The act of claiming asylum is not illegal. However, the act of attempting to (or in the case of 66 people from SL, actually landing on Australia) without appropriate documentation is a breach of our Customs and Immigration acts. I've never called them illegal asylum seekers - I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are until their application is processed. End of lesson.  :)

Nope.

They're neither:

a) illegal, or
b) immigrants


You are one confused puppy.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:03pm: I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are. And you're precisely 100% incorrect. They are neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants The act of claiming asylum is not illegal. However, the act of attempting to (or in the case of 66 people from SL, actually landing on Australia) without appropriate documentation is a breach of our Customs and Immigration acts. I've never called them illegal asylum seekers - I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are until their application is processed. End of lesson.  :) Nope. They're neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants You are one confused puppy.

A person who moves from one country to another to live permanently is, indeed, an immigrant. Duh!  :-?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

One final thing Soren, Indonesia dont want these people any more than you do. They are more than happy to take a few brown paper bags of cash to see the back of them.

They gave them visas to enter Indonesia legally.  They can't turn around and say that they have nuffin' do wiv people who lied about their purposes for entering Indonesia (tourism) and who are now leaving illegally.
Indonesia must take responsibility for allowing corruption that is p non-Indonesians  leaving through unauthorised ports.

For the Indonesians to get all legalistic about dope heads but plead innocence and helplessness about illegal border crossings is complete bvllshit and we all know it. They kno it. it's a charade. But we humour them because they are short, tinted and have funny head wear. We humour them because we know that it would be "wacist" to hold  Indonesia to proper, law-governed, responsible country standards.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:25pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:03pm: I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are. And you're precisely 100% incorrect. They are neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants The act of claiming asylum is not illegal. However, the act of attempting to (or in the case of 66 people from SL, actually landing on Australia) without appropriate documentation is a breach of our Customs and Immigration acts. I've never called them illegal asylum seekers - I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are until their application is processed. End of lesson.  :) Nope. They're neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants You are one confused puppy.

Actually, they are both illegal - entering without authorisation, and immigrants - they are people who want permanent settlement (=immigrants), not temporary protection (=refugees).

This is why temporary protection visas are perfectly proper. But do they want protection until things settle back home??
No.
They want settlement and they want it now (=immigrants). Do thy qualify for settlement as immigrants?
No.
Do they accept that?
No.
Are they using the 'I want asylum' shiboleth to gain permanent settlement that they could not get without this bogus refugee claim??
Yes.

Soren wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:25pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 1:56pm: One final thing Soren, Indonesia dont want these people any more than you do. They are more than happy to take a few brown paper bags of cash to see the back of them. They gave them visas to enter Indonesia legally.  They can't turn around and say that they have nuffin' do wiv people who lied about their purposes for entering Indonesia (tourism) and who are now leaving illegally. Indonesia must take responsibility for allowing corruption that is p non-Indonesians  leaving through unauthorised ports. For the Indonesians to get all legalistic about dope heads but plead innocence and helplessness about illegal border crossings is complete bvllshit and we all know it. They kno it. it's a charade. But we humour them because they are short, tinted and have funny head wear. We humour them because we know that it would be "wacist" to hold  Indonesia to proper, law-governed, responsible country standards.

Old boy, please. A modicum of respect for the tinted rule of law. If our yellow brethren choose to kill off their drug peddlers, we should offer our support and empathy. What next - smugglers of illicit cheese?

Besides, we humour them because there’s 250 million of the little yellow bastards.

A little pluralism goes a long way, as I’m sure you’ll agree. The Asiatic races do like to save face, what.

Social and cultural, innit.

I must admit, combining the twin issues of "our Chapelle" with people smugglers is a masterstroke worthy of Today Tonight. You’ve excelled yourself here, dear. Was it in the Spectator?

Jolly good show.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 6:59pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 5:25pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:51pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:03pm: I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are. And you're precisely 100% incorrect. They are neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants The act of claiming asylum is not illegal. However, the act of attempting to (or in the case of 66 people from SL, actually landing on Australia) without appropriate documentation is a breach of our Customs and Immigration acts. I've never called them illegal asylum seekers - I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are until their application is processed. End of lesson.  :) Nope. They're neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants You are one confused puppy. A person who moves from one country to another to live permanently is, indeed, an immigrant. Duh!  :-?

But they dont arrive do they. They are grabbed @ sea and taken to somewhere offshore.

SOB

Kat wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

[quote author=gandalf link=1365672853/5#5 date=1365675279] which according to former defence force chief, would amount to an act of piracy - illegal under international law.

Just quietly, Kat, I don't think that, at this point, we are worried about the colour of anyone's skin. We are aware that we need infrastructure before we can welcome any more.

These bludgers only want an easy life in cities, not sweating in rural areas.

Hear about the daily congestion of people trying to get to work or returning?

Wake up!


People from third world countries are great at breeding and have every intention of doing the same  when they get to Australia (if not while in transit!)

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

As Katter correctly points out, the boats stopped under Howard only because the boats were turned back. Nauru+TPVs (the pacific slution) did diddly squat - and in fact was implemented after the boats had already stopped.

You are a moron

Rider wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:

Bob who?  :D

Just as well Katter left the Coalition and took his mask off.

He best serve the farmers and not get involved with the illegals (unless he wants to offer his holdings to house them after they land).

It is their attitude that has me breathless. . .

Why should we accept them in their thousands when many of our own are homeless and barely eating ?

Would Sri Lanka open its doors to Australians in their thousands?

My idea of a refugee is one who emerges from the sea in rags not one well-dressed and cuddling a mobile phone.

Makka wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 8:41am:

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:34pm: As Katter correctly points out, the boats stopped under Howard only because the boats were turned back. Nauru+TPVs (the pacific slution) did diddly squat - and in fact was implemented after the boats had already stopped. You are a moron

Does that mean hes right and you are lashing out because you cant answer it?

SOB

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:10pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:03pm: I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are. And you're precisely 100% incorrect. They are neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants

no your wrong angain knuckle and by your own words they are better life shoppers, your words not mine

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

Makka wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 8:41am: polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:34pm: As Katter correctly points out, the boats stopped under Howard only because the boats were turned back. Nauru+TPVs (the pacific slution) did diddly squat - and in fact was implemented after the boats had already stopped. You are a moron Does that mean hes right and you are lashing out because you cant answer it? SOB

No he's not right

A simple google would have given him some background on the fact that in the years prior to the Pacific Solution there was an increase in illegal boats

Gillard at the time (2001) said "every boat of asylum-seekers that arrives represents a policy failure by the government"

The average annual arrival at the time was about 2000

The Pacific Solution was implemented and the arrivals trickled to 150 per year

So yeah gandalf is a moron

woof woof wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 9:58am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:10pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:03pm: I've always called them illegal immigrants, which is precisely what they are. And you're precisely 100% incorrect. They are neither: a) illegal, or b) immigrants no your wrong angain knuckle and by your own words they are better life shoppers, your words not mine

No, I'm 100% correct.

Asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

They are neither illegal, nor immigrants.

Sorry.

polite_gandalf wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:34pm:

Quote: Mr Katter also said opposition leader Tony Abbott could only claim the previous Liberal government was successful in reducing the number of asylum seeker boats towards the end of its term because it turned them back to Indonesia, and called on him come up with a better policy. "There is as much chance of Indonesia taking a boat back now as I've got of becoming an astronaut and going to Mars.'' http://www.news.com.au/national-news/group-of-asylum-seekers-who-reached-mainland-wanted-to-go-to-new-zealand/story-fncynjr2-1226617932866 Even Katter can destroy the rightards constant broken record argument about asylum policy. As Katter correctly points out, the boats stopped under Howard only because the boats were turned back. Nauru+TPVs (the pacific slution) did diddly squat - and in fact was implemented after the boats had already stopped. And now that we know the boats cannot be turned back again, Katter is right to ask the quesiton - 1. why does the coalition continue the lie that they will? and 2. Why doesn't the coalition come up with any alternative ideas?

This is Labor party thinking only.
They gave up on border protection long ago since they couldn't reverse a problem they themselves made, and they no longer have the political will left in them or the competence required to solve it.
But the Coalition will find a way as they already have in the past.
I'm sure many won't like the solution including the UN, but I'm equally sure it will work.

Yes, it will work and will involve the grip-n-twist of the Indonesians' short-n-curlies. It's those corrupt bastards who are allowing these boat people to legally check in but then leave Indonesia illegally.

Rider wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:48pm:

Bob who?  :D

Bob Katter, A rude man that weres a hat. :-X