Jakarta: A fisherman who helped return six Bangladeshis to Indonesia said he felt deceived by Australian authorities and would not have taken the men if he had known they were asylum seekers.

And the Indonesian foreign ministry reiterated on Thursday that Indonesia did not support Australia's unilateral boat turn-back policy, especially when carried out in the middle of the sea.

The latest incident at sea comes at a sensitive time, with the Bali Process - the main regional forum to combat people smuggling - to be held in Bali on March 22 and 23.
Three fishermen who helped return six Bangladeshi asylum-seekers and two alleged people smugglers to Indonesia. Gab Oma ...

Three fishermen who helped return six Bangladeshi asylum-seekers and two alleged people smugglers to Indonesia. Gab Oma 39, left, Muhammad Hatta 35, centre, Hamzah, 29, right. Photo: Joy Christians

A ministerial conference is normally held every two years but did not go ahead last year amid tensions between the two co-chairs - Indonesia and Australia - over the boat push-back policy and executions.

The skipper of the asylum seeker boat, Isai Rano, 34, said he and another Indonesian had been offered 92 million rupiah (about $AUD9000) to take the six Bangladeshis to Australia.

They left on March 3 but were rescued by an Australian Border Force maritime patrol three days later after their boat sank.
Fisherman Gab Oma returned the asylum-seekers to Indonesia.

Fisherman Gab Oma returned the asylum-seekers to Indonesia. Photo: Joy Christians

Gab Oma, a 39-year-old fisherman from Kupang, said he and other Indonesian fishermen were fishing nearby when they were asked by Australian authorities to return the men to Indonesia.

"We feel uncomfortable because of what the Australian Navy did by handing over the six Bangladeshi immigrants," said Mr Gab.

"They are people who are under a lot of stress. If they knew they were being returned to Indonesia, it's possible they would have taken over our boat and sailed back to Australia.
Fisherman Muhammad Hatta, who returned the asylum seekers to Indonesia, with rice and water provided by Australian ...

Fisherman Muhammad Hatta, who returned the asylum seekers to Indonesia, with rice and water provided by Australian authorities. Photo: Joy Christians

"If they were immigrants and people smugglers why not hand them straight over to the Indonesian government, why give them to fishermen?"

Mr Gab said Australian authorities gave Indonesian fishermen, who were fishing near Ashmore Reef, two sacks of rice, two boxes of bottled water, two 30 litre fuel jugs, soft drinks, eight life jackets and snacks, and asked them to return eight men to Kupang.

"If we knew they were immigrants we would have said no. We were told a fisherman from a sunk boat, so we thought it was our Indonesian brothers. In fact we were handed over Bangladeshi immigrants. Honestly we were deceived."

Mr Gab said the transfer of the Bangladeshi and Indonesian passengers from the Australian ship took place in Indonesian waters.

"We were 28 miles from Amarasi beach. I know, I checked the GPS on board, no mistake."

"We lose out. We hadn't caught anything (fish) yet, but we were told to go back with six immigrants and two people smugglers."

Mr Gab said the fishermen kept a close eye on the Bangladeshis on the trip back to Kupang and alerted the East Nusa Tenggara water police.

East Nusa Tenggara police chief Teddy Marbun told Fairfax Media that Mr Isai and the second crew member had been determined people smuggler suspects.

"The six immigrants said they headed for Australia to seek asylum," Mr Teddy said.

A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said the government did not comment on operational matters.

However Australian Border Force Commissioner Roman Quaedvlieg tweeted that an Australian Border Force maritime patrol had assisted an Indonesian vessel in distress.

"The vessel was NOT scuttled - was unseaworthy and sank. Pax (passengers) assisted & okay," tweeted

Australia's boat push-back policy is a running sore in the bilateral relationship. Indonesia sees the policy as a threat to its sovereignty and believes it put lives at risk and is not a sustainable solution.

In 2014 Australia apologised for Australian naval incursions into Indonesian waters while pushing back boats carrying asylum seekers.

Indonesian Foreign Ministry spokesman Arrmanatha Nasir said on Thursday the ministry had received a notification from Australian Maritime Border Command on March 7 that Indonesian fishermen had issued a distress call.

He said the notification did not mention Bangladeshi people.

"We are currently coordinating with Bakamla (Indonesian maritime security agency) to find out about the information accurately," he said.

"In general, Indonesia's position remains that we don't support unilateral action on boat turn-backs, especially when it is carried out in the middle of the sea. Not only is that dangerous but it will not solve the problem of the the illegal movement of persons. The cooperation of countries of origin, transit and destination is the main pillar to solve the problem.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/fisherman-who-returned-asylumseekers-to-indonesia-says-he-was-deceived-by-australia-20160310-gnfsfh.html#ixzz42WQrgnLb
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

Boats still coming , people still drowning , government bribing people smugglers shame libtards shame

Its time wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 3:31am:

Boats still coming , people still drowning , government bribing people smugglers shame libtards shame

The country shoppers paid the people smugglers not the government. The government gave the fishing boat skippers water, rice, fuel and life jackets to take the illegals back to Indonesia. That's hardly bribery.

The whole story makes no sense to me. There's something missing there. No way would the fishermen do that without some incentive besides water and food. One day the truth about all these incidents at sea will be revealed and we can be more ashamed of our government than we are now.

macman wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 7:29am:

The whole story makes no sense to me. There's something missing there. No way would the fishermen do that without some incentive besides water and food. One day the truth about all these incidents at sea will be revealed and we can be more ashamed of our government than we are now.

If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? I dont get it, its working, the people smuggling model is broken. Win/win.

ian wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 7:44am:

macman wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:29am: The whole story makes no sense to me. There's something missing there. No way would the fishermen do that without some incentive besides water and food. One day the truth about all these incidents at sea will be revealed and we can be more ashamed of our government than we are now. If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? I dont get it, its working, the people smuggling model is broken. Win/win.

That's why the left wing nutjob brigade is upset - the Coalition is doing something right and making tgem look like the incompetent fools that they are.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 5:30am:

Its time wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 3:31am: Boats still coming , people still drowning , government bribing people smugglers shame libtards shame The country shoppers paid the people smugglers not the government. The government gave the fishing boat skippers water, rice, fuel and life jackets to take the illegals back to Indonesia. That's hardly bribery.

It's not Leftwhingers fault. It's was 3.30am when he posted, he was obviously drinking and he doesn't have a job to get up for.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 8:03am:

ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: macman wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:29am: The whole story makes no sense to me. There's something missing there. No way would the fishermen do that without some incentive besides water and food. One day the truth about all these incidents at sea will be revealed and we can be more ashamed of our government than we are now. If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? I dont get it, its working, the people smuggling model is broken. Win/win. That's why the left wing nutjob brigade is upset - the Coalition is doing something right and making tgem look like the incompetent fools that they are.

My concern is with being continually lied to by the libs. If there is no issue with paying people smugglers, why hide it?

macman wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 8:09am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 8:03am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: [quote author=macman link=1457630999/3#3 date=1457645355]The whole story makes no sense to me. There's something missing there. No way would the fishermen do that without some incentive besides water and food. One day the truth about all these incidents at sea will be revealed and we can be more ashamed of our government than we are now. If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? I dont get it, its working, the people smuggling model is broken. Win/win. That's why the left wing nutjob brigade is upset - the Coalition is doing something right and making tgem look like the incompetent fools that they are.

My concern is with being continually lied to by the libs. If there is no issue with paying people smugglers, why hide it?
[/quote

Paying captains of boats to turn around and go back to Indonesia is definately the cheapest option.  It may not be morally correct nor perhaps legally correct but it is a cheap option

Had Labor done it however, the Roids on here would have been wetting their collective panties in shock and horror

macman wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 8:09am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 8:03am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: macman wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:29am: The whole story makes no sense to me. There's something missing there. No way would the fishermen do that without some incentive besides water and food. One day the truth about all these incidents at sea will be revealed and we can be more ashamed of our government than we are now. If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? I dont get it, its working, the people smuggling model is broken. Win/win. That's why the left wing nutjob brigade is upset - the Coalition is doing something right and making tgem look like the incompetent fools that they are. My concern is with being continually lied to by the libs. If there is no issue with paying people smugglers, why hide it?

Because if they advertise the fact, then tomorrow we'll have 50 fishing boats heading toward us with people posing as illegal immigrants just so boat skippers can pocket some cash.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 8:21am:

macman wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 8:09am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 8:03am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: macman wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:29am: The whole story makes no sense to me. There's something missing there. No way would the fishermen do that without some incentive besides water and food. One day the truth about all these incidents at sea will be revealed and we can be more ashamed of our government than we are now. If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? I dont get it, its working, the people smuggling model is broken. Win/win. That's why the left wing nutjob brigade is upset - the Coalition is doing something right and making tgem look like the incompetent fools that they are. My concern is with being continually lied to by the libs. If there is no issue with paying people smugglers, why hide it? Because if they advertise the fact, then tomorrow we'll have 50 fishing boats heading toward us with people posing as illegal immigrants just so boat skippers can pocket some cash.

You might have to do your post in finger paints and crayons so the left can understand it.

Jennifer wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 8:23am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 8:21am: macman wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 8:09am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 8:03am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: macman wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:29am: The whole story makes no sense to me. There's something missing there. No way would the fishermen do that without some incentive besides water and food. One day the truth about all these incidents at sea will be revealed and we can be more ashamed of our government than we are now. If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? I dont get it, its working, the people smuggling model is broken. Win/win. That's why the left wing nutjob brigade is upset - the Coalition is doing something right and making tgem look like the incompetent fools that they are. My concern is with being continually lied to by the libs. If there is no issue with paying people smugglers, why hide it? Because if they advertise the fact, then tomorrow we'll have 50 fishing boats heading toward us with people posing as illegal immigrants just so boat skippers can pocket some cash. You might have to do your post in finger paints and crayons so the left can understand it.

I doubt even then they could comprehend it, let alone agree with it.

ian wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 7:44am:

If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue?

it's illegal to pay people smugglers.

John Smith wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers.

They paid fisherman. Read the article properly.

According to the article the Navy didn't give any money to the fishermen.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:27am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:24am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers. They paid fisherman. Read the article properly.

to transport people to another country ....

John Smith wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:31am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:27am: John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:24am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers. They paid fisherman. Read the article properly. to transport people to another country ....

They still didn't pay people smugglers like you just posted. They gave provisions to a fishing boat to take them back to Indonesia because their boat sank. The Australian Navy actually saved their lives.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:36am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:31am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:27am: John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:24am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers. They paid fisherman. Read the article properly. to transport people to another country .... They still didn't pay people smugglers like you just posted. They gave provisions to a fishing boat to take them back to Indonesia because their boat sank. The Australian Navy actually saved their lives.

The boat sank in Indonesian waters I might add. The Australian Navy braved a diplomatic issue to save these people.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:36am: John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:31am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:27am: John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:24am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers. They paid fisherman. Read the article properly. to transport people to another country .... They still didn't pay people smugglers like you just posted. They gave provisions to a fishing boat to take them back to Indonesia because their boat sank. The Australian Navy actually saved their lives. The boat sank in Indonesian waters I might add. The Australian Navy braved a diplomatic issue to save these people.

The indos must be upset we're trotting around in their waters .

Its time wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:46am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:38am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:36am: John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:31am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:27am: John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:24am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers. They paid fisherman. Read the article properly. to transport people to another country .... They still didn't pay people smugglers like you just posted. They gave provisions to a fishing boat to take them back to Indonesia because their boat sank. The Australian Navy actually saved their lives. The boat sank in Indonesian waters I might add. The Australian Navy braved a diplomatic issue to save these people. The indos must be upset we're trotting around in their waters .

They would have drowned otherwise. Where was the Indonesian Navy?

John Smith wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:24am:

ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers.

and? Thats your sole, reason? The crew on the boats are technically people smugglers, yes. But they are at the bottom of the food chain, generally poverty stricken Indonesian villagers from remote areas, used as dupes by the organisers and paid very little. Paying these people not to deliver their human cargo if it happened is a very smart move as it breaks the organisers model.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 8:21am:

macman wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 8:09am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 8:03am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: macman wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:29am: The whole story makes no sense to me. There's something missing there. No way would the fishermen do that without some incentive besides water and food. One day the truth about all these incidents at sea will be revealed and we can be more ashamed of our government than we are now. If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? I dont get it, its working, the people smuggling model is broken. Win/win. That's why the left wing nutjob brigade is upset - the Coalition is doing something right and making tgem look like the incompetent fools that they are. My concern is with being continually lied to by the libs. If there is no issue with paying people smugglers, why hide it? Because if they advertise the fact, then tomorrow we'll have 50 fishing boats heading toward us with people posing as illegal immigrants just so boat skippers can pocket some cash.

wont happen. The crew were allegedly paid, not the human cargo.

ian wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 7:44am:

macman wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:29am: The whole story makes no sense to me. There's something missing there. No way would the fishermen do that without some incentive besides water and food. One day the truth about all these incidents at sea will be revealed and we can be more ashamed of our government than we are now. If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? I dont get it, its working, the people smuggling model is broken. Win/win.

Might work out cheaper than paying these country shopping economic migrants Centrelink benefits for the rest of their lives along with dept of housing subsidy.

Bob Carr called them economic migrants.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:36am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:31am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:27am: John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:24am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers. They paid fisherman. Read the article properly. to transport people to another country .... They still didn't pay people smugglers like you just posted. They gave provisions to a fishing boat to take them back to Indonesia because their boat sank. The Australian Navy actually saved their lives.

like i posted? where did I post that exactly?

Ian asked what the issue was, I told him. That rightards are happy to continually disregard the law when it suits them is a poor reflection on you, not me.

ian wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 11:15am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:24am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers. and? Thats your sole, reason? The crew on the boats are technically people smugglers, yes. But they are at the bottom of the food chain, generally poverty stricken Indonesian villagers from remote areas, used as dupes by the organisers and paid very little. Paying these people not to deliver their human cargo if it happened is a very smart move as it breaks the organisers model.

it's also my sole reason for not shooting certain people.

You're trying valiantly to make something out of nothing John.
We've been there and both sides of politics support it.

Whatever it takes to stop them or you can have a Rudd scenario again. Would that be preferable to you?

You'd get on well with Angela Merkel.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 1:47pm:

You're trying valiantly to make something out of nothing John. We've been there and both sides of politics support it. Whatever it takes to stop them or you can have a Rudd scenario again. Would that be preferable to you? You'd get on well with Angela Merkel.

what point am I making boges? Ian asked what the issue was, and I told him. You can disregard it all you like, it doesn't change anything. It is still illegal.

My personal opinion is that both labor and the libs have got it wrong.

John Smith wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 1:43pm:

ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 11:15am: John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:24am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers. and? Thats your sole, reason? The crew on the boats are technically people smugglers, yes. But they are at the bottom of the food chain, generally poverty stricken Indonesian villagers from remote areas, used as dupes by the organisers and paid very little. Paying these people not to deliver their human cargo if it happened is a very smart move as it breaks the organisers model. it's also my sole reason for not shooting certain people.

I doubt it. I can also guarantee that you break the law every day in some way, just like everybody else.

ian wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 3:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 1:43pm: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 11:15am: John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:24am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers. and? Thats your sole, reason? The crew on the boats are technically people smugglers, yes. But they are at the bottom of the food chain, generally poverty stricken Indonesian villagers from remote areas, used as dupes by the organisers and paid very little. Paying these people not to deliver their human cargo if it happened is a very smart move as it breaks the organisers model. it's also my sole reason for not shooting certain people. I doubt it. I can also guarantee that you break the law every day in some way, just like everybody else.

:-? ..well, ..so,.. anarchy is the goal then now is it?  :o :o

The crew of the people smuggling boat were paid by the illegals who wanted to come here. The governmwnt gave no money to the smugglers OR the fishermen who took them back to Indonesia. The government paid no one anything. The navy just provided rice, water, fuel and life jackets. That's all. No laws were broken - real or imagined.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 6:55pm:

The crew of the people smuggling boat were paid by the illegals who wanted to come here. The governmwnt gave no money to the smugglers OR the fishermen who took them back to Indonesia. The government paid no one anything. The navy just provided rice, water, fuel and life jackets. That's all. No laws were broken - real or imagined.

Thats not correct, the crew of the boats are being paid by the organisers, not the illegals. Its an important distinction..

ian wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 3:32pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 1:43pm: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 11:15am: John Smith wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:24am: ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:44am: If our government  has paid the crews to turn back then whats the issue? it's illegal to pay people smugglers. and? Thats your sole, reason? The crew on the boats are technically people smugglers, yes. But they are at the bottom of the food chain, generally poverty stricken Indonesian villagers from remote areas, used as dupes by the organisers and paid very little. Paying these people not to deliver their human cargo if it happened is a very smart move as it breaks the organisers model. it's also my sole reason for not shooting certain people. I doubt it. I can also guarantee that you break the law every day in some way, just like everybody else.

i doubt it.

ian wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 7:39pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 6:55pm: The crew of the people smuggling boat were paid by the illegals who wanted to come here. The governmwnt gave no money to the smugglers OR the fishermen who took them back to Indonesia. The government paid no one anything. The navy just provided rice, water, fuel and life jackets. That's all. No laws were broken - real or imagined. Thats not correct, the crew of the boats are being paid by the organisers, not the illegals. Its an important distinction..

Actually, the important distinction to understand is that the Australian government paid no one anything.

The only distinction we can make is the boats are still coming and as we have ran out of 200k life boats we now expect indo civilians to take them back to the mainland , apparently for free , which I'm am not buying   ::)

Its time wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:32pm:

The only distinction we can make is the boats are still coming and as we have ran out of 200k life boats we now expect indo civilians to take them back to the mainland , apparently for free , which I'm am not buying   ::)

They were in Indonesian waters. They weren't being taken back anywhere . If the Australian Navy didn't come to the scene they were shark bait.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:39pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 6:55pm: The crew of the people smuggling boat were paid by the illegals who wanted to come here. The governmwnt gave no money to the smugglers OR the fishermen who took them back to Indonesia. The government paid no one anything. The navy just provided rice, water, fuel and life jackets. That's all. No laws were broken - real or imagined. Thats not correct, the crew of the boats are being paid by the organisers, not the illegals. Its an important distinction.. Actually, the important distinction to understand is that the Australian government paid no one anything.

yes, well, that's the crux of the matter isn't it ?
Not just some theoretical ideal.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:35pm:

Its time wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 9:32pm: The only distinction we can make is the boats are still coming and as we have ran out of 200k life boats we now expect indo civilians to take them back to the mainland , apparently for free , which I'm am not buying   ::) They were in Indonesian waters. They weren't being taken back anywhere . If the Australian Navy didn't come to the scene they were shark bait.

sharks gotta eat something

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:20pm:

ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 7:39pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 6:55pm: The crew of the people smuggling boat were paid by the illegals who wanted to come here. The governmwnt gave no money to the smugglers OR the fishermen who took them back to Indonesia. The government paid no one anything. The navy just provided rice, water, fuel and life jackets. That's all. No laws were broken - real or imagined. Thats not correct, the crew of the boats are being paid by the organisers, not the illegals. Its an important distinction.. Actually, the important distinction to understand is that the Australian government paid no one anything.

I dont believe that for a second.

ian wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 10:38pm:

I dont believe that for a second.

Do you some concrete reference on which to hang your hat, for that?

lee wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 10:40pm:

ian wrote on Mar 11th, 2016 at 10:38pm: I dont believe that for a second. Do you some concrete reference on which to hang your hat, for that?

Just a burning hatred of the Coalition.  Does that count?

Its time wrote on Mar 11^th, 2016 at 9:32pm:

The only distinction we can make is the boats are still coming and as we have ran out of 200k life boats we now expect indo civilians to take them back to the mainland , apparently for free , which I'm am not buying   ::)

These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia - so why is it so bad that Australia insist on lawful entry and doesn't allow in illegal entrants? Why is it so bad to enforce the law?

Or would you like Australia to follow Europe's and America's example and allow people to enter the country contrary to the relevant laws?

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 8:27am:

These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia - so why is it so bad that Australia insist on lawful entry and doesn't allow in illegal entrants? Why is it so bad to enforce the law?

Indonesia isn't a signatory to the UN refugee convention. They have no rights in Indo ... Australia is a signatory. Australia should either withdraw from the convention or uphold it's commitments.

John Smith wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 8:46am:

Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:27am: These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia - so why is it so bad that Australia insist on lawful entry and doesn't allow in illegal entrants? Why is it so bad to enforce the law? Indonesia isn't a signatory to the UN refugee convention. They have no rights in Indo ... Australia is a signatory. Australia should either withdraw from the convention or uphold it's commitments.

We do - we take in more than 12,000 refugees every year. That's 12,000 who know how to do the right thing and who are actually in need of asylum. If they can do the right thing, so can those country-shoppers.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 8:50am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:46am: Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:27am: These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia - so why is it so bad that Australia insist on lawful entry and doesn't allow in illegal entrants? Why is it so bad to enforce the law? Indonesia isn't a signatory to the UN refugee convention. They have no rights in Indo ... Australia is a signatory. Australia should either withdraw from the convention or uphold it's commitments. We do - we take in more than 12,000 refugees every year. That's 12,000 who know how to do the right thing and who are actually in need of asylum. If they can do the right thing, so can those country-shoppers.

right thing? you mean when they went in the wrong direction, unlawfully entered another country or countries and then the UN sent them here, that was the right thing?

There isn't a right or wrong way to do it. There is no instruction manual. Those who have money available have more options open to them. Those that don't have money can only walk. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong.

John Smith wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:46am: Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:27am: These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia - so why is it so bad that Australia insist on lawful entry and doesn't allow in illegal entrants? Why is it so bad to enforce the law? Indonesia isn't a signatory to the UN refugee convention. They have no rights in Indo ... Australia is a signatory. Australia should either withdraw from the convention or uphold it's commitments. We do - we take in more than 12,000 refugees every year. That's 12,000 who know how to do the right thing and who are actually in need of asylum. If they can do the right thing, so can those country-shoppers. right thing? you mean when they went in the wrong direction, unlawfully entered another country or countries and then the UN sent them here, that was the right thing? There isn't a right or wrong way to do it. There is no instruction manual. Those who have money available have more options open to them. Those that don't have money can only walk. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Unlawfully entering another country and then being sent here? Are you THAT daft? If you''re referring to the Syrians that Abbott agreed to take in, then they're in refugee camps run by the UNHCR, not those people who ran all the way across Europe, knocking down border gates and trampling the sovereignty of numerous countries with a general attitude of "take us in or else". The 12,000 I referred to are people who applied for refugee status through the UNHCR, waited in refugee camps and were eventually sent here. They did the right thing. Would-be illegal immigrants have been warned by this government that if they want to come here, they need to avail themselves of the proper refugee processes and that if they utilise people smugglers, they will never be resettled here. It's very clear and the hard line of this government has stopped us from enduring what Germany and most of Europe is now experiencing with the tsunami of people flooding the lax borders of the EU.

you seem to think that because they applied from a third or fourth country it's somehow the right thing to do.

If, as you rightards are always claiming,  it is illegal to enter a country without a visa, why do you not complain when they enter a third or fourth country and then apply? Or do you think they're all aplying from the country they are running from? :D :D

John Smith wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 9:06am:

you seem to think that because they applied from a third or fourth country it's somehow the right thing to do. If, as you rightards are always claiming,  it is illegal to enter a country without a visa, why do you not complain when they enter a third or fourth country and then apply? Or do you think they're all aplying from the country they are running from? :D :D

Not if the other country is letting them in, which is what is happening in some parts of the Middle East. You are SO slow sometimes, Jack_Sh!t.

John Smith wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 8:46am:

Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:27am: These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia - so why is it so bad that Australia insist on lawful entry and doesn't allow in illegal entrants? Why is it so bad to enforce the law? Indonesia isn't a signatory to the UN refugee convention. They have no rights in Indo ... Australia is a signatory. Australia should either withdraw from the convention or uphold it's commitments.

Where does it say in the convention that we have to take people who try to enter illegally from a country where they are not persecuted?

Please show us. Also show us why it is OK for a country like Indonesia to be so corrupt at the expense of its neighbour, Australia? THey l;et them in visa free, knowing why they enter. But then they turn a blind eye when they board fishing boats financed by people smugglers who bribe Indonesian officials. Under what convention must we take a corrupt country like Indonesia seriously?

John Smith wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 8:55am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:46am: Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:27am: These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia - so why is it so bad that Australia insist on lawful entry and doesn't allow in illegal entrants? Why is it so bad to enforce the law? Indonesia isn't a signatory to the UN refugee convention. They have no rights in Indo ... Australia is a signatory. Australia should either withdraw from the convention or uphold it's commitments. We do - we take in more than 12,000 refugees every year. That's 12,000 who know how to do the right thing and who are actually in need of asylum. If they can do the right thing, so can those country-shoppers. right thing? you mean when they went in the wrong direction, unlawfully entered another country or countries and then the UN sent them here, that was the right thing? There isn't a right or wrong way to do it. There is no instruction manual. Those who have money available have more options open to them. Those that don't have money can only walk. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong.

Yes, there is an instruction manual - do not enter Australia without a visa. That is the instruction manual.

You break that rule and you will be detained and will never be allowed to live in Australia.  It's a pretty simple instruction manual. It's called Australian law.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 2:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:55am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:46am: Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:27am: These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia - so why is it so bad that Australia insist on lawful entry and doesn't allow in illegal entrants? Why is it so bad to enforce the law? Indonesia isn't a signatory to the UN refugee convention. They have no rights in Indo ... Australia is a signatory. Australia should either withdraw from the convention or uphold it's commitments. We do - we take in more than 12,000 refugees every year. That's 12,000 who know how to do the right thing and who are actually in need of asylum. If they can do the right thing, so can those country-shoppers. right thing? you mean when they went in the wrong direction, unlawfully entered another country or countries and then the UN sent them here, that was the right thing? There isn't a right or wrong way to do it. There is no instruction manual. Those who have money available have more options open to them. Those that don't have money can only walk. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong. Yes, there is an instruction manual - do not enter Australia without a visa. That is the instruction manual. You break that rule and you will be detained and will never be allowed to live in Australia.  It's a pretty simple instruction manual. It's called Australian law.

Strange, the signatories on refugee convention may suggest otherwise

Its time wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 2:36pm:

Strange, the signatories on refugee convention may suggest otherwise

To which refugee convention do you refer?

lee wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 3:48pm:

Its time wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 2:36pm: Strange, the signatories on refugee convention may suggest otherwise To which refugee convention do you refer?

Just a wild guess.

' A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.'
http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

The illegals self-identified  as Bangladeshi's.

'More than 700 Bangladeshis who arrived in Indonesia by boat will be sent back to their country having been deemed economic migrants.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-25/more-than-700-bangladeshi-refugees-in-indonesia-to-be-sent-home/6493564

Bangladeshi's are economic migrants; not refugees. Now tell me where economic migrants are deemed to be refugees.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 2:06pm:

Where does it say in the convention that we have to take people who try to enter illegally from a country where they are not persecuted?

It doesn't .... just like it doesn't say they have to be coming directly from a country where they are persecuted

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 2:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:55am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:46am: Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:27am: These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia - so why is it so bad that Australia insist on lawful entry and doesn't allow in illegal entrants? Why is it so bad to enforce the law? Indonesia isn't a signatory to the UN refugee convention. They have no rights in Indo ... Australia is a signatory. Australia should either withdraw from the convention or uphold it's commitments. We do - we take in more than 12,000 refugees every year. That's 12,000 who know how to do the right thing and who are actually in need of asylum. If they can do the right thing, so can those country-shoppers. right thing? you mean when they went in the wrong direction, unlawfully entered another country or countries and then the UN sent them here, that was the right thing? There isn't a right or wrong way to do it. There is no instruction manual. Those who have money available have more options open to them. Those that don't have money can only walk. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong. Yes, there is an instruction manual - do not enter Australia without a visa. That is the instruction manual. You break that rule and you will be detained and will never be allowed to live in Australia.  It's a pretty simple instruction manual. It's called Australian law.

there is no instruction manual to claim asylum and if you really believe that then you're a bigger id iot than I gave you credit for.

Soren wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 2:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:55am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:50am: John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:46am: Soren wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 8:27am: These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia - so why is it so bad that Australia insist on lawful entry and doesn't allow in illegal entrants? Why is it so bad to enforce the law? Indonesia isn't a signatory to the UN refugee convention. They have no rights in Indo ... Australia is a signatory. Australia should either withdraw from the convention or uphold it's commitments. We do - we take in more than 12,000 refugees every year. That's 12,000 who know how to do the right thing and who are actually in need of asylum. If they can do the right thing, so can those country-shoppers. right thing? you mean when they went in the wrong direction, unlawfully entered another country or countries and then the UN sent them here, that was the right thing? There isn't a right or wrong way to do it. There is no instruction manual. Those who have money available have more options open to them. Those that don't have money can only walk. That doesn't make one right and the other wrong. Yes, there is an instruction manual - do not enter Australia without a visa. That is the instruction manual. You break that rule and you will be detained and will never be allowed to live in Australia.  It's a pretty simple instruction manual. It's called Australian law.

What law do they break?

Please cite the relevant piece of legislation, and section.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 11:47am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 9:06am: you seem to think that because they applied from a third or fourth country it's somehow the right thing to do. If, as you rightards are always claiming,  it is illegal to enter a country without a visa, why do you not complain when they enter a third or fourth country and then apply? Or do you think they're all aplying from the country they are running from? :D :D Not if the other country is letting them in, which is what is happening in some parts of the Middle East. You are SO slow sometimes, Jack_Sh!t.

the other country is letting them in because they are upholding their UN obligations. You're an id iot. You use the countries that follow the convention they signed up for as an excuse for us to not follow our obligations?

Dear o dear o dear.

What's this ... from the Parliament of Australia?

"There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa."

Click me!

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:32am:

Dear o dear o dear. What's this ... from the Parliament of Australia? "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." Click me!

You have said it a million times but it doesnt sink in to those heads that have a kangaroo loose in the top paddock.

Aussie wrote on Mar 12^th, 2016 at 3:51pm:

lee wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 3:48pm: Its time wrote on Mar 12th, 2016 at 2:36pm: Strange, the signatories on refugee convention may suggest otherwise To which refugee convention do you refer? Just a wild guess.

And where does it say that we must take secondary movement illegal entrants without visas and passports (destroyed by themselves), transported by people smugglers?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:32am:

Dear o dear o dear. What's this ... from the Parliament of Australia? "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." Click me!

It's not unconstitutional or illegal or criminal to take such people to offshore detention either.

Isn't this just great? Not illegal to come without a visa and not illegal to detain them offshore if they come without a visa.

The Europeans should do the same thing.

Its time wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:41am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:32am: Dear o dear o dear. What's this ... from the Parliament of Australia? "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." Click me! You have said it a million times but it doesnt sink in to those heads that have a kangaroo loose in the top paddock.

Amazing, isn't it?

"There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa."

Yet, the rightards continue to live in their own little world, and pretend otherwise.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:06am:

"There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa."

The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason.

Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason..

lee wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 11:03am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:06am: "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason. Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason..

Economic migrants ? They travelled on a leaky boat halfway across the world  to sit on 200 bucks a week welfare  :D yep that's why they came  ;D

Its time wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 11:17am:

lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:06am: "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason. Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason.. Economic migrants ? They travelled on a leaky boat halfway across the world  to sit on 200 bucks a week welfare  :D yep that's why they came  ;D

It's more than $200 bucks a week. If it wasn't about economics then why didn't they go to a closer country??

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 11:19am:

Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:17am: lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:06am: "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason. Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason.. Economic migrants ? They travelled on a leaky boat halfway across the world  to sit on 200 bucks a week welfare  :D yep that's why they came  ;D It's more than $200 bucks a week. If it wasn't about economics then why didn't they go to a closer country??

Perhaps they wanted to make something of their lives in the 'lucky country', flicking beetles of your cock , eating mice and walking miles for a drink doesn't sound like any sort of life.

Its time wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 11:17am:

lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:06am: "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason. Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason.. Economic migrants ? They travelled on a leaky boat halfway across the world  to sit on 200 bucks a week welfare  :D yep that's why they came  ;D

Well, with 4 kids and a wife or two it amounts to a lot more, plus public housing and various concessions - if you don't speak English and have no skills, that's a lot more than you could ever hope to get anywhere else by working. SO yes, it's very much worth their while top come all this way, or to Europe,  just for the welfare.

Its time wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 11:30am:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:19am: Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:17am: lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:06am: "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason. Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason.. Economic migrants ? They travelled on a leaky boat halfway across the world  to sit on 200 bucks a week welfare  :D yep that's why they came  ;D It's more than $200 bucks a week. If it wasn't about economics then why didn't they go to a closer country?? Perhaps they wanted to make something of their lives in the 'lucky country', flicking beetles of your cock , eating mice and walking miles for a drink doesn't sound like any sort of life.

so it is about economics then.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:30am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:19am: Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:17am: lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:06am: "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason. Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason.. Economic migrants ? They travelled on a leaky boat halfway across the world  to sit on 200 bucks a week welfare  :D yep that's why they came  ;D It's more than $200 bucks a week. If it wasn't about economics then why didn't they go to a closer country?? Perhaps they wanted to make something of their lives in the 'lucky country', flicking beetles of your cock , eating mice and walking miles for a drink doesn't sound like any sort of life. so it is about economics then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRlqmTKyQx0

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:00pm:

Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:30am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:19am: Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:17am: lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:06am: "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason. Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason.. Economic migrants ? They travelled on a leaky boat halfway across the world  to sit on 200 bucks a week welfare  :D yep that's why they came  ;D It's more than $200 bucks a week. If it wasn't about economics then why didn't they go to a closer country?? Perhaps they wanted to make something of their lives in the 'lucky country', flicking beetles of your cock , eating mice and walking miles for a drink doesn't sound like any sort of life. so it is about economics then.

Disgraceful!

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:15pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:30am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:19am: Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:17am: lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:06am: "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason. Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason.. Economic migrants ? They travelled on a leaky boat halfway across the world  to sit on 200 bucks a week welfare  :D yep that's why they came  ;D It's more than $200 bucks a week. If it wasn't about economics then why didn't they go to a closer country?? Perhaps they wanted to make something of their lives in the 'lucky country', flicking beetles of your cock , eating mice and walking miles for a drink doesn't sound like any sort of life. so it is about economics then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRlqmTKyQx0

;D ;D ;D leftwinger agreed with me and he didn't even realise.  ;D ;D ;D

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:21pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:15pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:30am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:19am: Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:17am: lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:06am: "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason. Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason.. Economic migrants ? They travelled on a leaky boat halfway across the world  to sit on 200 bucks a week welfare  :D yep that's why they came  ;D It's more than $200 bucks a week. If it wasn't about economics then why didn't they go to a closer country?? Perhaps they wanted to make something of their lives in the 'lucky country', flicking beetles of your cock , eating mice and walking miles for a drink doesn't sound like any sort of life. so it is about economics then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRlqmTKyQx0 ;D ;D ;D leftwinger agreed with me and he didn't even realise.  ;D ;D ;D

You don't seem to have a point, though.

Are you suggesting that people should not try to make a better lifer for themselves and their family?      :-/

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:23pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:21pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:15pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:00pm: Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:30am: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:19am: Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:17am: lee wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 11:03am: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:06am: "There is no offence under Australian law that criminalises the act of arriving in Australia or the seeking of asylum without a valid visa." The act of arrival without a valid visa will see that person denied entry and returned, if they have no valid reason. Economic migrants are not seeking "asylum", and therefore have no valid reason.. Economic migrants ? They travelled on a leaky boat halfway across the world  to sit on 200 bucks a week welfare  :D yep that's why they came  ;D It's more than $200 bucks a week. If it wasn't about economics then why didn't they go to a closer country?? Perhaps they wanted to make something of their lives in the 'lucky country', flicking beetles of your cock , eating mice and walking miles for a drink doesn't sound like any sort of life. so it is about economics then. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRlqmTKyQx0 ;D ;D ;D leftwinger agreed with me and he didn't even realise.  ;D ;D ;D You don't seem to have a point, though. Are you suggesting that people should not try to make a better lifer for themselves and their family?      :-/

So now it's taken the giant leap from salvation to having a great first world lifestyle. It just doesn't smell good. This smells fake.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:25pm:

So now it's taken the giant leap from salvation to having a great first world lifestyle. It just doesn't smell good. This smells fake.

Are you suggesting that people should not try to make a better life for themselves and their family?    

Defenders of Europe’s disastrous recent border policies are keen to point out the technical differences between illegal immigration, economic migrants and asylum claimants. But the reluctance to create any serious programme of removal for the first two is not only sapping public sympathy for the third, it is part of the same failure that allowed millions of migrants into the continent in the first place, without checking where they were from or considering the consequences of them coming.

A tolerance for illegal as well as legal immigration has become a European principle in recent years. But over the last 12 months that attitude has been turbo-charged. European leaders have been searching for a rationale for their madness. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s first justification for opening the doors of Europe lay in the minority of arrivals fleeing Syria. But as a far larger number of economic migrants arrived from across Africa, the Middle East and Far East, the rationale changed. Instead it became a wonderful opportunity for an ‘ageing continent’ to acquire a new influx of workers; a new generation to keep us all in the style to which we have become accustomed.

Almost nobody asks why this position was adopted at a time when youth unemployment rates in much of Europe are hovering around 50 per cent. But today even the European Commission admits that most of the people who came to Europe last year should not be here. In January, the Commission’s vice-president Frans Timmermans admitted that at least 60 per cent of recent arrivals were economic migrants, not asylum seekers. Not Syrians fleeing a war prolonged by Turkey and all the other Muslim states of the Middle East, but people who, in Timmermans’s words, ‘have no reason to apply for refugee status’.

Now futile second thoughts are everywhere. Even Sweden, the self-proclaimed ‘humanitarian superpower’, has been doing some thinking. The country’s own interior minister, Anders Ygeman, recently admitted that of the 163,000 people to whom the country opened its arms last year, at least 80,000 might be fake asylum seekers in need of deporting.

When, exactly, will Sweden deport those people — given that it managed to deport just 4,000 last year? Over many ensuing years, as Mr Ygeman pretends? Or never, as everybody else knows?

Even when Sweden does manage to arrange a deportation notice, three-quarters of the subjects immediately disappear. And since nobody bothered to check who was coming in from where, no one knows where to send most of the ones they do find.

It is the same story in Germany. How could it be otherwise in a country which brought in up to one and a half million people last year? Is Germany ever going to deport the more than three-quarters of a million people (according to the Timmermans estimate) who entered the country last year under false pretences? Of course not. They will slip into the black economy, a new generation of workers who will be on the run from the authorities and the law. In time, they will bring their families to join them.

Europe is expecting a similar number of migrants to arrive this year, and now the situation is so bad that last week Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council — appealed to the world: ‘Do not come to Europe.’ Too late. Last year, he and Angela invited them. And due to the incompetence, blindness or weakness of Europe’s leadership, everyone stayed. At last beginning to panic, those same leaders spent last week trying to slow the flow of migrants from Syria by doing a deal which flings the doors of Europe open to the citizens of Turkey.

Europe truly is on a suicide mission. All we have to decide is whether we want to be a part of it.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/03/europes-folly-has-made-it-a-civilisation-under-siege/

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:28pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:25pm: So now it's taken the giant leap from salvation to having a great first world lifestyle. It just doesn't smell good. This smells fake. Are you suggesting that people should not try to make a better life for themselves and their family?

Of course. In many of the other countries to choose from. Millions of people live in countries like Cambodia. Why can't they?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:28pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:25pm: So now it's taken the giant leap from salvation to having a great first world lifestyle. It just doesn't smell good. This smells fake. Are you suggesting that people should not try to make a better life for themselves and their family?

Yes. They should not try to make a better life for themselves and their families on a foreign country's welfare system.  If they have something to CONTRIBUTE they could come as legal migrants. But as they do not, they exploit the refugee loophole.



How about these people, all the Arabs, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Africans, etc make a better country for themselves, a country where they were born and where they are at home.

How's that for a novel ide? How about they stop being total savages to each other?  Why don't they try THAT?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:30pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:25pm: So now it's taken the giant leap from salvation to having a great first world lifestyle. It just doesn't smell good. This smells fake. Are you suggesting that people should not try to make a better life for themselves and their family?     Of course. In many of the other countries to choose from. Millions of people live in countries like Cambodia. Why can't they?

Australia is much better.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:34pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:25pm: So now it's taken the giant leap from salvation to having a great first world lifestyle. It just doesn't smell good. This smells fake. Are you suggesting that people should not try to make a better life for themselves and their family?     Of course. In many of the other countries to choose from. Millions of people live in countries like Cambodia. Why can't they? Australia is much better.

So if you got kicked out of your yuppie bachelor pad in Victoria park by an angry group of aborigines you'd only settle for a 5 star hotel instead of a roof over your head in Blacktown?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:39pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:34pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:25pm: So now it's taken the giant leap from salvation to having a great first world lifestyle. It just doesn't smell good. This smells fake. Are you suggesting that people should not try to make a better life for themselves and their family?     Of course. In many of the other countries to choose from. Millions of people live in countries like Cambodia. Why can't they? Australia is much better. So if you got kicked out of your yuppie bachelor pad in Victoria park by an angry group of aborigines you'd only settle for a 5 star hotel instead of a roof over your head in Blacktown?

I would aim for the very best.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:43pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:39pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:34pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:30pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:28pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:25pm: So now it's taken the giant leap from salvation to having a great first world lifestyle. It just doesn't smell good. This smells fake. Are you suggesting that people should not try to make a better life for themselves and their family?     Of course. In many of the other countries to choose from. Millions of people live in countries like Cambodia. Why can't they? Australia is much better. So if you got kicked out of your yuppie bachelor pad in Victoria park by an angry group of aborigines you'd only settle for a 5 star hotel instead of a roof over your head in Blacktown? I would aim for the very best.

Typical answer from an over pampered person. The people living in tents on the Turkish border don't have luxury of determining the standard of their salvation. I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:46pm:

I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose.

Yes: money gets you a long way in this world.

Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it?

Or, are you happy to just settle for second best?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 12:53pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best?

If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 1:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety.

So, it's not about economics.

Make up your mind.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 1:12pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety. So, it's not about economics. Make up your mind.

For the fake reffos it is.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 1:15pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 1:12pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety. So, it's not about economics. Make up your mind. For the fake reffos it is.

Well then, wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it?

Or, are you happy to just settle for second best?

Moreover, what is your point?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 1:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety.

I'd be thinking about both.

The pertinent questions is: why do these people screw up their own countries to the extent that the can no longer want to live there?

These countries are hellholes precisely because of the people who are now trying to get out of them.

How about putting some effort into being nice to each other so they can work and live together in peace and prosperity?? What IS it about all these third world pr!cks that makes them
1 screw up their own countries
2 flee
3 demand accommodation in nice countries
4 proceed to screw up nice countries.




I cannot think of a single improvement on Western countries that were made by third worlders. Not one. Can anyone else? is there any third world way of organising your life that the West should take on board?

I don't think so. We are importing trouble and corruption and hell- holery.


Unassimilated third worlders are a net negative. Who needs them?? Other unassimilated third worlders already here.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 8:41pm:

The pertinent questions is: why do these people screw up their own countries to the extent that the can no longer want to live there? These countries are hellholes precisely because of the people who are now trying to get out of them. How about putting some effort into being nice to each other so they can work and live together in peace and prosperity?? What IS it about all these third world pr!cks that makes them 1 screw up their own countries 2 flee 3 demand accommodation in nice countries 4 proceed to screw up nice countries. I cannot think of a single improvement on Western countries that were made by third worlders. Not one. Can anyone else? is there any third world way of organising your life that the West should take on board? I don't think so. We are importing trouble and corruption and hell- holery. Unassimilated third worlders are a net negative. Who needs them?? Other unassimilated third worlders already here.

I can imagine you saying that about the Greeks Italians and Chinese when they starting coming , everybody will get bored of hating Muslims , but don't stress, someone new will take their place  ::)

Its time wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 8:48pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 8:41pm: The pertinent questions is: why do these people screw up their own countries to the extent that the can no longer want to live there? These countries are hellholes precisely because of the people who are now trying to get out of them. How about putting some effort into being nice to each other so they can work and live together in peace and prosperity?? What IS it about all these third world pr!cks that makes them 1 screw up their own countries 2 flee 3 demand accommodation in nice countries 4 proceed to screw up nice countries. I cannot think of a single improvement on Western countries that were made by third worlders. Not one. Can anyone else? is there any third world way of organising your life that the West should take on board? I don't think so. We are importing trouble and corruption and hell- holery. Unassimilated third worlders are a net negative. Who needs them?? Other unassimilated third worlders already here. I can imagine you saying that about the Greeks Italians and Chinese when they starting coming , everybody will get bored of hating Muslims , but don't stress, someone new will take their place  ::)

it all depends on how the muslim community acts in the future.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 8:50pm:

Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 8:48pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 8:41pm: The pertinent questions is: why do these people screw up their own countries to the extent that the can no longer want to live there? These countries are hellholes precisely because of the people who are now trying to get out of them. How about putting some effort into being nice to each other so they can work and live together in peace and prosperity?? What IS it about all these third world pr!cks that makes them 1 screw up their own countries 2 flee 3 demand accommodation in nice countries 4 proceed to screw up nice countries. I cannot think of a single improvement on Western countries that were made by third worlders. Not one. Can anyone else? is there any third world way of organising your life that the West should take on board? I don't think so. We are importing trouble and corruption and hell- holery. Unassimilated third worlders are a net negative. Who needs them?? Other unassimilated third worlders already here. I can imagine you saying that about the Greeks Italians and Chinese when they starting coming , everybody will get bored of hating Muslims , but don't stress, someone new will take their place  ::) it all depends on how the muslim community acts in the future.

Probably the same as they're now , completely normal.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 1:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety.

really? so you wouldn't take into consideration the fact that the next country might see you and your kids in a camp for the next 20 years, with little food, no career prospects, no education and no future? you'd just close your eyes and run blindly?

Actually, come to think of it, I'd believe that you would. .. you're a rightie. you live for here and now. the future doesn't ever come into your thoughts.

Its time wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 8:48pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 8:41pm: The pertinent questions is: why do these people screw up their own countries to the extent that the can no longer want to live there? These countries are hellholes precisely because of the people who are now trying to get out of them. How about putting some effort into being nice to each other so they can work and live together in peace and prosperity?? What IS it about all these third world pr!cks that makes them 1 screw up their own countries 2 flee 3 demand accommodation in nice countries 4 proceed to screw up nice countries. I cannot think of a single improvement on Western countries that were made by third worlders. Not one. Can anyone else? is there any third world way of organising your life that the West should take on board? I don't think so. We are importing trouble and corruption and hell- holery. Unassimilated third worlders are a net negative. Who needs them?? Other unassimilated third worlders already here. I can imagine you saying that about the Greeks Italians and Chinese when they starting coming , everybody will get bored of hating Muslims , but don't stress, someone new will take their place  ::)

You look at history - the Greeks and the Italians have had a positive influence everywhere.

Muslims have had a negative influence everywhere.

You get used to garlic and market gardens. You don't get used to 4 wives and gender segregation and jihad.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

You look at history - the Greeks and the Italians have had a positive influence everywhere. Muslims have had a negative influence everywhere.

Islam isn't a country, Sore End.

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:11pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety. really? so you wouldn't take into consideration the fact that the next country might see you and your kids in a camp for the next 20 years, with little food, no career prospects, no education and no future? you'd just close your eyes and run blindly? Actually, come to think of it, I'd believe that you would. .. you're a rightie. you live for here and now. the future doesn't ever come into your thoughts.

Real refugees don't have the luxury of picking salvation and determining it's 5 star rating.

Its time wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 8:55pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 8:50pm: Its time wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 8:48pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 8:41pm: The pertinent questions is: why do these people screw up their own countries to the extent that the can no longer want to live there? These countries are hellholes precisely because of the people who are now trying to get out of them. How about putting some effort into being nice to each other so they can work and live together in peace and prosperity?? What IS it about all these third world pr!cks that makes them 1 screw up their own countries 2 flee 3 demand accommodation in nice countries 4 proceed to screw up nice countries. I cannot think of a single improvement on Western countries that were made by third worlders. Not one. Can anyone else? is there any third world way of organising your life that the West should take on board? I don't think so. We are importing trouble and corruption and hell- holery. Unassimilated third worlders are a net negative. Who needs them?? Other unassimilated third worlders already here. I can imagine you saying that about the Greeks Italians and Chinese when they starting coming , everybody will get bored of hating Muslims , but don't stress, someone new will take their place  ::) it all depends on how the muslim community acts in the future. Probably the same as they're now , completely normal.

Really??

What makes them the 'Muslim community' if they are just like everyone else???  Why ARE we talking about the 'Muslim community' if they are no different to the Australians,  Chinese, the Vietnamese, the English,the Danes, Germans, Italians, Greeks, Indians??

WHY is there a 'Muslim community' if you can't tell the difference between Muslims and everyone else?



Articulate. Explain.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:13pm:

You look at history - the Greeks and the Italians have had a positive influence everywhere.

yeah yeah ... that's not what the rabid right were saying at the time. Back then the headlines were all about importing criminal mafiosi, thieves and murders.

In 30 years time, you'll be crying about those coming from Africa and telling us how great the muslims have assimilated  :D :D :D

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:15pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:13pm: You look at history - the Greeks and the Italians have had a positive influence everywhere. Muslims have had a negative influence everywhere. Islam isn't a country, Sore End.

Ummah.

It's a country in their minds.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:11pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety. really? so you wouldn't take into consideration the fact that the next country might see you and your kids in a camp for the next 20 years, with little food, no career prospects, no education and no future? you'd just close your eyes and run blindly? Actually, come to think of it, I'd believe that you would. .. you're a rightie. you live for here and now. the future doesn't ever come into your thoughts. Real refugees don't have the luxury of picking salvation and determining it's 5 star rating.

Says who?

Whom?

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:18pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:15pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:13pm: You look at history - the Greeks and the Italians have had a positive influence everywhere. Muslims have had a negative influence everywhere. Islam isn't a country, Sore End. Ummah. It's a country in their minds.

Nope.

Wanna try again, Sore end?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:18pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:11pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety. really? so you wouldn't take into consideration the fact that the next country might see you and your kids in a camp for the next 20 years, with little food, no career prospects, no education and no future? you'd just close your eyes and run blindly? Actually, come to think of it, I'd believe that you would. .. you're a rightie. you live for here and now. the future doesn't ever come into your thoughts. Real refugees don't have the luxury of picking salvation and determining it's 5 star rating. Says who? Whom?

says real desperation.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:11pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety. really? so you wouldn't take into consideration the fact that the next country might see you and your kids in a camp for the next 20 years, with little food, no career prospects, no education and no future? you'd just close your eyes and run blindly? Actually, come to think of it, I'd believe that you would. .. you're a rightie. you live for here and now. the future doesn't ever come into your thoughts. Real refugees don't have the luxury of picking salvation and determining it's 5 star rating.

why? it's not that hard to pick a good country. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the countries that consistently rate in the top 3 'best countries to live in' will attract asylum seekers. YOu do realise that they do read, write and watch tv just the same as you do , right?  :D :D

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:18pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:13pm: You look at history - the Greeks and the Italians have had a positive influence everywhere. yeah yeah ... that's not what the rabid right were saying at the time. Back then the headlines were all about importing criminal mafiosi, thieves and murders. In 30 years time, you'll be crying about those coming from Africa and telling us how great the muslims have assimilated  :D :D :D

The mafia you can control. Jihad you can't.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:19pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:18pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:15pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:13pm: You look at history - the Greeks and the Italians have had a positive influence everywhere. Muslims have had a negative influence everywhere. Islam isn't a country, Sore End. Ummah. It's a country in their minds. Nope. Wanna try again, Sore end?

Nope??


Nope how??


Explain how it's 'nope'.  THEN you can ask supplementary questions.  Being as thick and incomprehending as you are is not an argument.


Explain the 'nope', thicko.

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:21pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:18pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:11pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety. really? so you wouldn't take into consideration the fact that the next country might see you and your kids in a camp for the next 20 years, with little food, no career prospects, no education and no future? you'd just close your eyes and run blindly? Actually, come to think of it, I'd believe that you would. .. you're a rightie. you live for here and now. the future doesn't ever come into your thoughts. Real refugees don't have the luxury of picking salvation and determining it's 5 star rating. why? it's not that hard to pick a good country. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the countries that consistently rate in the top 3 'best countries to live in' will attract asylum seekers. YOu do realise that they do read, write and watch tv just the same as you do , right?  :D :D

Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Most of the worlds real refugees  footslog it to a border refugee camp and live in a shanty. There's multiple millions of them worldwide.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:18pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:11pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety. really? so you wouldn't take into consideration the fact that the next country might see you and your kids in a camp for the next 20 years, with little food, no career prospects, no education and no future? you'd just close your eyes and run blindly? Actually, come to think of it, I'd believe that you would. .. you're a rightie. you live for here and now. the future doesn't ever come into your thoughts. Real refugees don't have the luxury of picking salvation and determining it's 5 star rating. why? it's not that hard to pick a good country. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the countries that consistently rate in the top 3 'best countries to live in' will attract asylum seekers. YOu do realise that they do read, write and watch tv just the same as you do , right?  :D :D Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Most of the worlds real refugees  footslog it to a border refugee camp and live in a shanty. There's multiple millions of them worldwide.

don't sail past

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:18pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:13pm: You look at history - the Greeks and the Italians have had a positive influence everywhere. yeah yeah ... that's not what the rabid right were saying at the time. Back then the headlines were all about importing criminal mafiosi, thieves and murders. In 30 years time, you'll be crying about those coming from Africa and telling us how great the muslims have assimilated  :D :D :D The mafia you can control. Jihad you can't.

No need to control Jihad, we don't have it in Australia.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:21pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:18pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:11pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 1:03pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:53pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 12:46pm: I suppose a $15,000US people smuggling ticket gives one more scope to pick and choose. Yes: money gets you a long way in this world. Wouldn't you strive for the very best, if you could afford it? Or, are you happy to just settle for second best? If I didn't feel safe in my country I wouldn't be thinking about the best country. I'd be thinking about my safety. really? so you wouldn't take into consideration the fact that the next country might see you and your kids in a camp for the next 20 years, with little food, no career prospects, no education and no future? you'd just close your eyes and run blindly? Actually, come to think of it, I'd believe that you would. .. you're a rightie. you live for here and now. the future doesn't ever come into your thoughts. Real refugees don't have the luxury of picking salvation and determining it's 5 star rating. why? it's not that hard to pick a good country. It doesn't take a genius to work out that the countries that consistently rate in the top 3 'best countries to live in' will attract asylum seekers. YOu do realise that they do read, write and watch tv just the same as you do , right?  :D :D Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Most of the worlds real refugees  footslog it to a border refugee camp and live in a shanty. There's multiple millions of them worldwide.

and? no one says they can't sail past. Last time I went to Europe I flew over about 40 countries ... should I have stopped at each of them?

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:28pm:

Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries.

Who could blame them?

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:18pm:

WHY is there a 'Muslim community' if you can't tell the difference between Muslims and everyone else? Articulate. Explain.

Greggary claimed he can tell a Muslim just by looking at them.

We've talked about this a million times guys. I smell a rat as many people do. I don't trust asylum seekers having $20,000US to give to a criminal.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:36pm:

We've talked about this a million times guys. I smell a rat as many people do. I don't trust asylum seekers having $20,000US to give to a criminal.

A multi-billionaire can be an asylum seeker.

It has nothing to do with one's wealth.

So, having established that fact, why wouldn't you trust an asylum seeker with money?

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:31pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:23pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:18pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:13pm: You look at history - the Greeks and the Italians have had a positive influence everywhere. yeah yeah ... that's not what the rabid right were saying at the time. Back then the headlines were all about importing criminal mafiosi, thieves and murders. In 30 years time, you'll be crying about those coming from Africa and telling us how great the muslims have assimilated  :D :D :D The mafia you can control. Jihad you can't. No need to control Jihad, we don't have it in Australia.

You lefty mongs will lie, as you do here, just to avoid uncomfortable truths.

OF COURSE there is jihad in Australia. There is jihad everywhere that Muslims live.

For you to say that there is no jihad in Australia is to deal yourself out of any discussion as a completely stupid, wilfully uninformed,wilfully idiotic parrot who utters without having any thought, idea or comprehension thereof.

A cazzo, in a word.

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:36pm:

I don't trust asylum seekers having $20,000US to give to a criminal.

Why? you realise that as soon as their is civil unrest, the rich are the first to be targeted?

My cousin married someone who's family ran from Saddam when he first took control. Before that they had exclusive rights to import Mercs in Iraq. An oil rich country and every Merc went through them. Should they have pretended to be poor?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Who could blame them?

Fine - sail to Nauru and enjoy.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

OF COURSE there is jihad in Australia.

no, I'm talking about the real Australia, not that imaginary place you have in your head.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Who could blame them?

Who cares? The bottom line is the people smuggling trade is reprehensible and  and legally and morally wrong. Allowing people to buy their way in perpetuates the trade. Australia can and does allow refugees in anyway so its a moot point.

ian wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:34pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Who could blame them? Who cares? The bottom line is the people smuggling trade is reprehensible and  and legally and morally wrong. Allowing people to buy their way in perpetuates the trade. Australia can and does allow refugees in anyway so its a moot point.

So, what's QANTAS when they fly them in and get paid for it?

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:41pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:36pm: I don't trust asylum seekers having $20,000US to give to a criminal. Why? you realise that as soon as their is civil unrest, the rich are the first to be targeted? My cousin married someone who's family ran from Saddam when he first took control. Before that they had exclusive rights to import Mercs in Iraq. An oil rich country and every Merc went through them. Should they have pretended to be poor?

Why is it that rightards always "think" that asylum seekers have to be poor?

Seriously - where did that nonsense come from?

Why are they so ignorant to the facts?

ian wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:34pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Who could blame them? Who cares? The bottom line is the people smuggling trade is reprehensible and  and legally and morally wrong. Allowing people to buy their way in perpetuates the trade. Australia can and does allow refugees in anyway so its a moot point.

Abbott paid people smugglers.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:

Why are they so ignorant to the facts?

I think ignorance may be a substitute for oxygen for rightards.  They seem to thrive on it.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:38pm:

Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:36pm: We've talked about this a million times guys. I smell a rat as many people do. I don't trust asylum seekers having $20,000US to give to a criminal. A multi-billionaire can be an asylum seeker. It has nothing to do with one's wealth. So, having established that fact, why wouldn't you trust an asylum seeker with money?

If you are a billionaire and you still have to pay some dirty little Iranian people smuggler plying his trade in Indonesia, bribing dirty little corrupt Indonesians,  to get on a rickety boat to Australia then Nauru is exactly what you deserve - you have made your money by being a stupid exploiter of your own people.  You deserve everything coming your way - you have been shafted at last. And not a moment too soon.

But putting all that aside - they are not refugees.  They are chancers pretending to be refugees. Revolting chancres and gamers.i

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:46pm:

Abbott paid people smugglers.

Ian didn't mind that, in fact he even supported it  ... he was happy to forget how reprehensible when it suited his racism.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:46pm:

ian wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:34pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Who could blame them? Who cares? The bottom line is the people smuggling trade is reprehensible and  and legally and morally wrong. Allowing people to buy their way in perpetuates the trade. Australia can and does allow refugees in anyway so its a moot point. Abbott paid people smugglers.

prove this.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:47pm:

they are not refugees

I said 'asylum seekers', Sore End.

After all these years, you still don't understand the difference.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:45pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:41pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:36pm: I don't trust asylum seekers having $20,000US to give to a criminal. Why? you realise that as soon as their is civil unrest, the rich are the first to be targeted? My cousin married someone who's family ran from Saddam when he first took control. Before that they had exclusive rights to import Mercs in Iraq. An oil rich country and every Merc went through them. Should they have pretended to be poor? Why is it that rightards always "think" that asylum seekers have to be poor? Seriously - where did that nonsense come from? Why are they so ignorant to the facts?

Why do you think we should take in rich refugees rather than poor ones.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:46pm:

ian wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:34pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Who could blame them? Who cares? The bottom line is the people smuggling trade is reprehensible and  and legally and morally wrong. Allowing people to buy their way in perpetuates the trade. Australia can and does allow refugees in anyway so its a moot point. Abbott paid people smugglers.

He should have aimed the guns at them and counted to three.  Could have saved a lot of money. 

Coming to Australia by boat from Indonesia is a racketr and it is and must be treated as a racket.

They are lucky not to be all shot into the water.

Imagine - 'turn back or we will shoot'. And then shoot if they don't turn back.


Defending one's borders from unauthorised  and unwanted breaches. Every boat leaving Indonesian waters without authorisation should be treated as a hostile act by  Indonesia - which is what they are. They are lucky to be turned back and not gunned down.

ian wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:53pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:45pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:41pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:36pm: I don't trust asylum seekers having $20,000US to give to a criminal. Why? you realise that as soon as their is civil unrest, the rich are the first to be targeted? My cousin married someone who's family ran from Saddam when he first took control. Before that they had exclusive rights to import Mercs in Iraq. An oil rich country and every Merc went through them. Should they have pretended to be poor? Why is it that rightards always "think" that asylum seekers have to be poor? Seriously - where did that nonsense come from? Why are they so ignorant to the facts? Why do you think we should take in rich refugees rather than poor ones.

When did I ever say that "we should take in rich refugees rather than poor ones"?

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:46pm: Abbott paid people smugglers. Ian didn't mind that, in fact he even supported it  ... he was happy to forget how reprehensible when it suited his racism.

The crews were paid (allegedly), not the organisers, remember at the time I said it was an important distinction. Nonetheless, one that went over your head, and still does.

ian wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:48pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:46pm: ian wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:34pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Who could blame them? Who cares? The bottom line is the people smuggling trade is reprehensible and  and legally and morally wrong. Allowing people to buy their way in perpetuates the trade. Australia can and does allow refugees in anyway so its a moot point. Abbott paid people smugglers. prove this.

This is not proof, but it describes the proof which is available.

Link.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:54pm:

He should have aimed the guns at them ...

You want to kill these people, do you?


http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150618115724-syrian-refugee-mother-rescued-exlarge-169.jpg

ian wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:48pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:46pm: Abbott paid people smugglers. Ian didn't mind that, in fact he even supported it  ... he was happy to forget how reprehensible when it suited his racism. The crews were paid (allegedly), not the organisers, remember at the time I said it was an important distinction. Nonetheless, one that went over your head, and still does.

the distinction exists only in your head. Paying someone to do something illegal is paying someone to do something illegal.

Aussie wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:56pm:

ian wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:48pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:46pm: ian wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:34pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Who could blame them? Who cares? The bottom line is the people smuggling trade is reprehensible and  and legally and morally wrong. Allowing people to buy their way in perpetuates the trade. Australia can and does allow refugees in anyway so its a moot point. Abbott paid people smugglers. prove this. This is not proof, but it describes the proof which is available. Link.

it doesn't matter ... next week when someone mentions it he'll once again ask for proof. He's on about 4 weeks straight now where he's asked, been given, and then he's asked again

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:03pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:56pm: ian wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:48pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:46pm: ian wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:34pm: Mr Hammer wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:28pm: Most refugees do sail past multiple chances  for a new life to settle in the best countries. Who could blame them? Who cares? The bottom line is the people smuggling trade is reprehensible and  and legally and morally wrong. Allowing people to buy their way in perpetuates the trade. Australia can and does allow refugees in anyway so its a moot point. Abbott paid people smugglers. prove this. This is not proof, but it describes the proof which is available. Link. it doesn't matter ... next week when someone mentions it he'll once again ask for proof. He's on about 4 weeks straight now where he's asked, been given, and then he's asked again

How could anyone live with themselves, knowing that they support a Government that willingly breaks the law in order to have people die anywhere else rather than in their own backyard?

Seriously - what sort of people are we talking about here?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:49pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:47pm: they are not refugees I said 'asylum seekers', Sore End. After all these years, you still don't understand the difference.

Your stance would make sense if there was a systematic removal of failed asylum seeker.

But there is not. So your hairsplitting little ruse is all bollocks. They are exploiting the asylum seekers -refugee continuum and you aid them with your pissy little yeah but no but.

We - the West - pretend that we cannot deport failed asylum seekers because they have no passports (which they have destroyed). We should deport ALL failed asylum seekers to Indonesia, whether they have travel documents or not - or park them in some hell hole like Manus Island or Nauru -which is what is happening. SO the PNG/Nauru solution IS the answer to your hairsplitting about asylum versus refugees.

Illegal entrant?  Off they go. They can be asylum seekers or refugees or whatever in Nauru, PNG, whatever.


Executive summary: Queue jumper? F Vck orf.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:10pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:49pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:47pm: they are not refugees I said 'asylum seekers', Sore End. After all these years, you still don't understand the difference. Your stance would make sense if there was a systematic removal of failed asylum seeker.

Once again, you don't understand the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee.

I'm curious: did you ever actually go to school?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 9:57pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:54pm: He should have aimed the guns at them ... You want to kill these people, do you? http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150618115724-syrian-refugee-mother-rescued-exlarge-169.jpg

Would you not shoot home intruders?

I would.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:10pm:

Executive summary: Queue jumper? F Vck orf.

More astounding ignorance.

There is no queue.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:10pm:

a Government that willingly breaks the law in order to have people die anywhere else rather than in their own backyard?

How is that happening? A government willingly breaking the law. 

Explain, our distraught little emotional incontinent.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:14pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:10pm: a Government that willingly breaks the law in order to have people die anywhere else rather than in their own backyard? How is that happening? A government willingly breaking the law.  Explain, our distraught little emotional incontinent.

Abbott paid people smugglers.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:12pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:10pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:49pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 9:47pm: they are not refugees I said 'asylum seekers', Sore End. After all these years, you still don't understand the difference. Your stance would make sense if there was a systematic removal of failed asylum seeker. Once again, you don't understand the difference between an asylum seeker and a refugee. I'm curious: did you ever actually go to school?

Explain how we are removing failed asylum claimants.

What is the rate of deportation of people whose asylum claim is rejected.

In Sweden, it is 4,000 a year. They have 80,000 failed asylum claimants. At that rate it will take 20 years top deport them - assuming than NO MORE failed asylum seekers arrive ever again.



Just try to be honest, gweg, even if the idea violates every instinct in your body.

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:18pm:

What is the rate of deportation of people whose asylum claim is rejected.

Tell me.

And then, tell me what your point is.

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:13pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:10pm: Executive summary: Queue jumper? F Vck orf. More astounding ignorance. There is no queue.

Really?

How come then that 12,000 Syrians are brought here while all those illegals are in Nauru and Manus?

I tell you how come. The illegals opted for the wrong queue.  And now they known it.


The other queue always moves faster - and don't they know it!!!!

Soren wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:23pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:13pm: Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:10pm: Executive summary: Queue jumper? F Vck orf. More astounding ignorance. There is no queue. Really?

Yes, really.

There is no queue.

What part don't you understand?

greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13^th, 2016 at 10:15pm:

Soren wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:14pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Mar 13th, 2016 at 10:10pm: a Government that willingly breaks the law in order to have people die anywhere else rather than in their own backyard? How is that happening? A government willingly breaking the law.  Explain, our distraught little emotional incontinent. Abbott paid people smugglers.

And what is wrong with that? If queue jumpers can pay people smugglers then it's obviously OK to pay people to get what you want.

Or does the law only apply to governments and others who observe it but not to the fake  people who want to circumvent it???