OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[Dee Fan 3,247]

We are not talking about entire nations migrating here to seek asylum, it is a few thousand tops.

My point is the easiest way to help prevent this problem is to refuse to contribute to the conditions which lead to them needing to seek asylum in the first place. And then when people from these countries which we have helped to invade and destroy do risk their lives to travel by sea in boats to get here the least we can do is treat them humanely and not demonise them to score political points by using them as scapegoats to take the average persons eyes off the fact that the people they should really be angry at are those leading the major political parties and those who head the banks and other large corporations who sell them out and fleece them every single day of their lives.

Nice political rant there but somewhat off the mark.

A few thousand tops, I doubt that even you would believe that, how many are off the shores of Europe waiting to land and how many recently drowned on there way there, tens of thousands waiting and hundreds have drowned. We have boat people arriving from Sri Lanka, Africa, and other Countries where we've had no involvement. The wars in Afghanistan have been going on forever but you blame us and the USA, seriously. Irrespective of what involvement the US had in Iraq bringing Sadaam to power he had to be removed or don't you think he did? Same applies to the Taliban they are sub human and whatever the US did it certainly wasn't as bad as what they did.

Most of the boat people are Muslims and they bypass the largest Muslim country in the world to come here; why?

Not sure what involvement the banks have in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan etc. perhaps you could explain that one.

As I've said before the African and Muslim countries have huge numbers of children that they cannot support so they look elsewhere for someone to take care of them. They are breeding at an alarming rate and for every one we take in another ten will replace them, ultimately looking for a home. This is not a simple issue of there being 1,000,000 displaced persons looking for a home this is an ongoing problem that seems to have no end.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,300]

Nice political rant there but somewhat off the mark.

A few thousand tops, I doubt that even you would believe that, how many are off the shores of Europe waiting to land and how many recently drowned on there way there, tens of thousands waiting and hundreds have drowned. We have boat people arriving from Sri Lanka, Africa, and other Countries where we've had no involvement. The wars in Afghanistan have been going on forever but you blame us and the USA, seriously. Irrespective of what involvement the US had in Iraq bringing Sadaam to power he had to be removed or don't you think he did? Same applies to the Taliban they are sub human and whatever the US did it certainly wasn't as bad as what they did.

Most of the boat people are Muslims and they bypass the largest Muslim country in the world to come here; why?

Not sure what involvement the banks have in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan etc. perhaps you could explain that one.

As I've said before the African and Muslim countries have huge numbers of children that they cannot support so they look elsewhere for someone to take care of them. They are breeding at an alarming rate and for every one we take in another ten will replace them, ultimately looking for a home. This is not a simple issue of there being 1,000,000 displaced persons looking for a home this is an ongoing problem that seems to have no end.

You don't get it so there's no point wasting my time with you. Suffice to say regardless of all the other irrelevant waffle you've posted I continue to be amazed that people can justify the invasion of Iraq which was undertaken on the basis of no reasoning/evidence whatsoever other than a slick PR campaign designed by those high up in the White House with strong links to Halliburton, oil companies, arms manufacturers and security organisations. Anyone with even a slightest clue and a memory that spanned further back than the last 6 months saw through the propaganda for the joke it was (unless of course you still believe to this day that there were WMD in Iraq or Saddam was involved in 9/11....bwahahahaha)

You may try and justify it all you want but the fact remains the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is on our collective hands. The language you use particularly in the last paragraph is quite enlightening, it could be used as a case study in denial and dehumanisation.

EDIT: I should also add that I've never said we should just accept everyone who arrives and grant them immediate citizenship - but the policies of successive governments and the way the Immigration Dept handles the issue is disgraceful. Locking people up indefinitely and trying to absolve ourselves of any responsibility by turning people around or now towing them back to Indonesian waters is shocking in its inhumanity.

Edited January 18, 2014 by Dr. Gonzo

[daisycutter 29,738]

that's a big chip on the shoulder you got there doc

the garden of eden was destroyed 1000's of years ago

becoming a west hater will get you nowhere........but if it makes you feel better...

[Dr. Gonzo 24,300]

that's a big chip on the shoulder you got there doc

the garden of eden was destroyed 1000's of years ago

becoming a west hater will get you nowhere........but if it makes you feel better...

Yeah OK, if it helps you sleep better at night. I'm not a "west hater" whatever that means, I just disapprove of supporting invasions, coups, assassinations, terror etc etc and the inhumane treatment of people. You can call that what you want but if that is "west hating" to you then I'd suggest you probably need to reflect a little.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

You don't get it so there's no point wasting my time with you. Suffice to say regardless of all the other irrelevant waffle you've posted I continue to be amazed that people can justify the invasion of Iraq which was undertaken on the basis of no reasoning/evidence whatsoever other than a slick PR campaign designed by those high up in the White House with strong links to Halliburton, oil companies, arms manufacturers and security organisations. Anyone with even a slightest clue and a memory that spanned further back than the last 6 months saw through the propaganda for the joke it was (unless of course you still believe to this day that there were WMD in Iraq or Saddam was involved in 9/11....bwahahahaha)

You may try and justify it all you want but the fact remains the blood of hundreds of thousands of innocent people is on our collective hands. The language you use particularly in the last paragraph is quite enlightening, it could be used as a case study in denial and dehumanisation.

EDIT: I should also add that I've never said we should just accept everyone who arrives and grant them immediate citizenship - but the policies of successive governments and the way the Immigration Dept handles the issue is disgraceful. Locking people up indefinitely and trying to absolve ourselves of any responsibility by turning people around or now towing them back to Indonesian waters is shocking in its inhumanity.

I was against our involvement in Iraq and I'm on record as saying so, I'm also on record as saying I was against sending troops to Afghanistan but don't let the truth get in the way of your rant. You conveniently ignore the rest of what I said.

Care to comment on that or don't you have an answer to the never ending supply of refugees being produced in Africa and most Muslim nations?

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Yeah OK, if it helps you sleep better at night. I'm not a "west hater" whatever that means, I just disapprove of supporting invasions, coups, assassinations, terror etc etc and the inhumane treatment of people. You can call that what you want but if that is "west hating" to you then I'd suggest you probably need to reflect a little.

Do you also disapprove of the inhumane treatment brought upon their own people by the Taliban and Saddam?

Or is it ok if it's done by their own kind. Easier to blame the west; isn't it.

By the way have you ever asked the people of Iran who they would prefer, particularly the young. For that matter do you think there are many who mourn Saddam or long for the return of the Taliban; ask the Women in Afghanistan who they'd prefer.

[Hannibal 5,814]

It's hilarious how you speak with such conviction yet wouldn't really have any idea whatsoever of the circumstances of those who would risk their lives, sell off all their possessions just for an opportunity to escape their third world hellholes that have been destroyed by wars and domestic terror just because they happened to be born in a country that was part of the west's "grand chessboard" to conquer.

It's easy to judge from a keyboard in Richmond but I could easily say the same for you, that you have been stupid enough to buy the spin of the government that their lives aren't in peril, that they aren't fleeing persecution. I guess it's easier to cheerlead invasions and war crimes when you can laugh off the fact that the people from those nations are just devious criminals trying to game the system. The entire Australian government policy towards asylum seekers (not "illegals" according to the law) from Keating on has been a disgrace. Don't think that I have any love for Gillard or Rudd's policies either.

This is of course completely ignoring the point of my post which was in relation to the Vietnamese student who was bashed senseless by some home grown white supremacist heroes and due to being in hospital was unable to attend classes and so "breached" his visa conditions - not only that but the manner in which the immigration department chose to handle the matter and the manner in which Morrison and the government wipes its hands of it is disgraceful whether it was carried out by the ALP or LNP. I despise both major parties in Australia so trying to paint me as some leftist ALP stooge really does your argument no favours (although it's clear you don't really have an argument and only gross generalisations and baiting.)

To be perfectly frank the personal situations of the people attempting to arrive here by boat don't overly interest me. I'll let those who are paid to protect our borders decide who should, or shouldn't enter. Although I readily acknowledge people born here are among the luckiest people on the planet; and it's patently obvious why others would want a life here as well.

Now back to the questions I posed that you're yet to respond to. What do you think of the Labor Party's decision to change policies that were working ? Policies that subsequently lured thousands to their death at sea ?

Why do so many throw away their papers ? Is it so they can't be identified ?

And do you acknowledge that before they jump on a leaky boat they have traveled through safe countries ? They don't need to make the perilous journey to Australia for their own personal safety. As mentioned earlier, it's patently obvious why they want to come here, but I recommend different means.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Most illegals arrive by air as valid holiday/working visa holders from places like the USA, China, Japan, New Zealand, the UK, European countries and so on. Assylum seekers are NOT illegals. Can you prove a single thing you have said regarding "most" not fleeing persecution and throwing their papers away? There are plenty of sites where you can find stats regarding illegals (overstayers who hide from the authorities), but please feel free to show us the irrefutable evidence for your claims.

YOU buy the spin that the Hansons, Howards (Hanson reinvented) and Abbotts of this world sell to you. These people would not be taking the risks that they take unless they were desperate... and I think even you might realise that.

In 2011/12 more people arrived by boat than air. From 2009-2012 the percentages are approx. 53% air and 47% boat. Thankfully, with the boats now stopping less people will die at sea and your cherished percentage will greatly increase once more.

The Department of Immigration says the average number of IMAs arriving without official documentation between 2008-2011 was 81.21%.

As for fleeing persecution ? I'll let others decide the individual merits on worthiness. What I do know is that they have traveled through safe countries prior to reaching Australia and don't need to make a perilous boat journey.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Hannibal

[dee-luded 2,959]

You speak with forked tongue.

Most illegals (love that word) that try to come here throw away their papers and are not fleeing persecution. They've travelled through safe countries to get here.

You're just stupid enough to buy the spin that their lives are in peril. The boats are stopping and people will stop drowning at sea.

You should save your disgust for the Labor party that rid themselves of a successful Howard policy only to lure people to their deaths. But no, you're so compassionate you don't say a word. The left are such hypocrites.

your wrong hanibal.

the labour party had a mandate from the people of Australia, who did not want to see the Howard governments treatment of the boat people, of That time.

... it was early days and none of us public, new much about the growing situation.

Except seeing the people on our mainland climbing up onto razor wire, & seeing worldwide condemnation. Labour did what the voters Expected of them.

the Off-Shore concept was Way too late in Howards term. the people were over it, & over Him. & still are.

... the current trouble is the refugees already accepted here, are instructing their families & friends of how to Exploit our goodwill & try to embarass us around the world as they know we are proud of our friendliness.

They are using this to hurt us for their own ends. This is not a value I want our citizens to have, to use anything they can, to hurt Us. Instead of becoming a part of our culture.

..... we've all seen how the taxi drivers have changed that industry, into one of ignoring passengers, only taking passengers when & who they want, ripping off drunk peoples belongings, etc. & even raping some.

[dee-luded 2,959]

Nice political rant there but somewhat off the mark.

A few thousand tops, I doubt that even you would believe that, how many are off the shores of Europe waiting to land and how many recently drowned on there way there, tens of thousands waiting and hundreds have drowned. We have boat people arriving from Sri Lanka, Africa, and other Countries where we've had no involvement. The wars in Afghanistan have been going on forever but you blame us and the USA, seriously. Irrespective of what involvement the US had in Iraq bringing Sadaam to power he had to be removed or don't you think he did? Same applies to the Taliban they are sub human and whatever the US did it certainly wasn't as bad as what they did.

Most of the boat people are Muslims and they bypass the largest Muslim country in the world to come here; why?

Not sure what involvement the banks have in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan etc. perhaps you could explain that one.

As I've said before the African and Muslim countries have huge numbers of children that they cannot support so they look elsewhere for someone to take care of them. They are breeding at an alarming rate and for every one we take in another ten will replace them, ultimately looking for a home. This is not a simple issue of there being 1,000,000 displaced persons looking for a home this is an ongoing problem that seems to have no end.

We had No business going into Iraq the second time, after the destroying of the world trade centre buildings... it wasn't sadam who plotted the crashing.

stories have it that it was supported by Saudi.

most of the UN said NO to going into Iraq & they have been proven correct. Howard was Wrong. & took us into an area where our people now are targets overseas.

the middle east would be better off with Sadam Hussein in power, than it is now... No matter how much we despise what he was. it should have been up to the Iraqi's to get rid of him, & then we could have supported Them.

the US have made an almighty mess of the so called balance of power, throughout the Near & Middle East... & Asia in general.

the vacuum has been created at a time when their is much unrest, & rogue leaders are in abundance.

[Hannibal 5,814]

your wrong hanibal.

the labour party had a mandate from the people of Australia, who did not want to see the Howard governments treatment of the boat people, of That time.

... it was early days and none of us public, new much about the growing situation.

Except seeing the people on our mainland climbing up onto razor wire, & seeing worldwide condemnation. Labour did what the voters Expected of them.

the Off-Shore concept was Way too late in Howards term. the people were over it, & over Him. & still are.

... the current trouble is the refugees already accepted here, are instructing their families & friends of how to Exploit our goodwill & try to embarass us around the world as they know we are proud of our friendliness.

They are using this to hurt us for their own ends. This is not a value I want our citizens to have, to use anything they can, to hurt Us. Instead of becoming a part of our culture.

..... we've all seen how the taxi drivers have changed that industry, into one of ignoring passengers, only taking passengers when & who they want, ripping off drunk peoples belongings, etc. & even raping some.

In your opinion.

There were 4 people in detention when Howard left. Is it the treatment of those 4 you're talking about ? Is it the treatment of the 3 boats per year you're talking about ?

Labor can't blame the Aust. public for their treacherous decision to rid a policy that was working.

[dee-luded 2,959]

In your opinion.

There were 4 people in detention when Howard left. Is it the treatment of those 4 you're talking about ? Is it the treatment of the 3 boats per year you're talking about ?

Labor can't blame the Aust. public for their treacherous decision to rid a policy that was working.

No, I'm talking about the whole 3 years of that term, which is what the People based their opinions on.

... & the previous times of "children overboard", the "Ports fiasco", the Illegal War in Iraq, the rundown of public schools, hospitals, trades apprentices, the import of foreign workers, & general tiredness of his governments ways.

[Hannibal 5,814]

No, I'm talking about the whole 3 years of that term, which is what the People based their opinions on.

... & the previous times of "children overboard", the "Ports fiasco", the Illegal War in Iraq, the rundown of public schools, hospitals, trades apprentices, the import of foreign workers, & general tiredness of his governments ways.

It's up to Government to make good policy. If policy fails you can't them blame the people for voting for it.

Btw, Howard lost the election on a number of fronts.

[dee-luded 2,959]

It's up to Government to make good policy. If policy fails you can't them blame the people for voting for it.

Btw, Howard lost the election on a number of fronts.

Of course he did... I know that.

But he was removed By the People. not by the Labour Party.

.

[dpositive 1,684]

Thanks for all the comment which continues to express the polarised positions our politicians have created .

I did not support the Children overboard claims I did not support the Rudd Gillard actions and I do not support the current governments actions.

Yes there are millions of refugees all trying to leave countries which have a combination of home grown despots and imported machineries of war. Guns and weapons are supplied by developed countries and exploitation is usually a reason.religious zealots do little to practice peaceful means of conversion and prefer domination and eradication.

Population explosion is an outcome as life expectancy is tenuous.

Migrants are desperate. Not all are persecuted. some have paid to improve their life and many have been instructed to destroy their past and have trained responses.

Perhaps as advanced developed countries we could assist by easing problems, decrease armaments and import farm machinery and practices instead, improve health and education and teach some sustainable practices. It might help if we developed and practised a few of those ourselves.

Meanwhile we could help process migrants more humanely and effectively and while identifying them provide some training and encouragement to return to their countries with new skills and an enlightened understanding.

There is so much more to this situation and the answers are not at the extremes but somewhere in the middle. I sense that understanding is even happening on these pages and look forward to the continuing debate where there is recognition of points on both sides.

[hardtack 10,627]

In 2011/12 more people arrived by boat than air. From 2009-2012 the percentages are approx. 53% air and 47% boat. Thankfully, with the boats now stopping less people will die at sea and your cherished percentage with greatly increase once more.

The Department of Immigration says the average number of IMAs arriving without official documentation between 2008-2011 was 81.21%.

As for fleeing persecution ? I'll let others decide the individual merits on worthiness. What I do know is that they have traveled through safe countries prior to reaching Australia and don't need to make a perilous boat journey.

Boat arrivals are classified as asylum seekers... Seeking asylum is not illegal and as they are nabbed before landing on our shores, they are not immigrants. They fully expect to be taken into custody so that they can then seek asylum...they are not attempting to land and avoid detection. Your ILLEGAL overstayers however, deliberately try to avoid detection and are in far greater numbers in our society than boat arrivals... The boat arrivals who are free to live in our society are there legally.

As for precious percentages, you seem to be the one concerned with citing them...not I.

And your last sentence is a cop out. You made an absolute statement that most were not escaping persecution or peril. You made an absolute statement that most were throwing away their papers.

[Hannibal 5,814]

Boat arrivals are classified as asylum seekers... Seeking asylum is not illegal and as they are nabbed before landing on our shores, they are not immigrants. They fully expect to be taken into custody so that they can then seek asylum...they are not attempting to land and avoid detection. Your ILLEGAL overstayers however, deliberately try to avoid detection and are in far greater numbers in our society than boat arrivals... The boat arrivals who are free to live in our society are there legally.

As for precious percentages, you seem to be the one concerned with citing them...not I.

And your last sentence is a cop out. You made an absolute statement that most were not escaping persecution or peril. You made an absolute statement that most were throwing away their papers.

You asked for ''proof'' about throwing papers away and the Department for Immigration supplied the proof at 81%.

You said that most people arrive by air. Not in 2011/2012 they didn't and the figures are approx. half from 2009.

Finally, how could my last sentence be a cop out ? EVEN if they were fleeing persecution, they've traveled through safe countries and don't need to hop on a leaky boat. Which is my POINT. They are SAFE prior to reaching Australia.

I do happen to hold the view that most are not fleeing personal persecution. I do happen to agree with Labor's Tony Burke who said they were mostly ''economic migrants''.

As for the term illegal, etc., I couldn't care less; and it doesn't change one scintilla of the fact that we need to stop people drowning at sea. Something that seemingly doesn't concern you. You seem more concerned by intentions than consequences. Which is classic left wing thinking. Plain dumb.

[hardtack 10,627]

You asked for ''proof'' about throwing papers away and the Department for Immigration supplied the proof at 81%.

You said that most people arrive by air. Not in 2011/2012 they didn't and the figures are approx. half from 2009.

Finally, how could my last sentence be a cop out ? EVEN if they were fleeing persecution, they've traveled through safe countries and don't need to hop on a leaky boat. Which is my POINT. They are SAFE prior to reaching Australia.

I do happen to hold the view that most are not fleeing personal persecution. I do happen to agree with Labor's Tony Burke who said they were mostly ''economic migrants''.

As for the term illegal, etc., I couldn't care less; and it doesn't change one scintilla of the fact that we need to stop people drowning at sea. Something that seemingly doesn't concern you. You seem more concerned by intentions than consequences. Which is classic left wing thinking. Plain dumb.

81% had no papers...very different meaning. These people are fleeing and it's very possible many would never have had paperwork In the first place.

As for the comment re arriving by air, the majority of known ILLEGALS (overstayers) arrive by air...you are confusing boat people (legal asylum seekers) with illegal immigrants...how many boat people are you aware of that hold tourist or working holiday visas?

Funny how you use a labour view as if it is meant to convince us of a point in your argument. You stated your what you now call "view" as a "fact" ... nice back peddling.

None of us want to see these people risking their lives at sea and only an idiot would think we do. You claim to be concerned about their lives but that is really typical right wing speak for "we don't want these people here at all". You claim to care about their well being but really don't care at all...the fact that you call them illegals, speaks volumes for your regard for see people and their welfare...as does your belief that these people are not fleeing danger.

[Hannibal 5,814]

81% had no papers...very different meaning. These people are fleeing and it's very possible many would never have had paperwork In the first place.

As for the comment re arriving by air, the majority of known ILLEGALS (overstayers) arrive by air...you are confusing boat people (legal asylum seekers) with illegal immigrants...how many boat people are you aware of that hold tourist or working holiday visas?

Funny how you use a labour view as if it is meant to convince us of a point in your argument. You stated your what you now call "view" as a "fact" ... nice back peddling.

None of us want to see these people risking their lives at sea and only an [censored] would think we do. You claim to be concerned about their lives but that is really typical right wing speak for "we don't want these people here at all". You claim to care about their well being but really don't care at all...the fact that you call them illegals, speaks volumes for your regard for see people and their welfare...as does your belief that these people are not fleeing danger.

Yes, I was talking about asylum seekers arriving by boat and air. They do both. No, I'm not talking about overstayers. This obviously needs to be cleaned up too. Start a thread about them if you like.

I don't want families dying at sea and I also want to determine who enters our country. The boats stopped under Howard and are starting to stop again. Don't you like this ? You know, less people dying. Is that good ?

Also, you keep dodging my point that they're traveling through safe countries prior to arriving in Australia. If they are fleeing persecution they don't need to jump on a leaky boat to get here. You seem to enjoy ignoring this fact.

Finally, making an assertion doesn't mean that you're stating fact. It's a declared opinion. It's my view. Funnily enough, I suspect this last minor point, which is completely meaningless in the discussion, will interest you the most. The stuff about people being safe before risking their lives to come here and the boats starting to stop and lives saved appears to be of less interest.

Oh yes, you're right in one sense. While I have sympathy for people that come from wretched situations I don't profess to have the answers and nor do I immerse myself in their personal situations. I'm at arms length and don't profess otherwise. Do you profess otherwise ?

Edited January 19, 2014 by Hannibal

[dee-luded 2,959]

Yes, I was talking about asylum seekers arriving by boat and air. They do both. No, I'm not talking about overstayers. This obviously needs to be cleaned up too. Start a thread about them if you like.

I don't want families dying at sea and I also want to determine who enters our country. The boats stopped under Howard and are starting to stop again. Don't you like this ? You know, less people dying. Is that good ?

Also, you keep dodging my point that they're traveling through safe countries prior to arriving in Australia. If they are fleeing persecution they don't need to jump on a leaky boat to get here. You seem to enjoy ignoring this fact.

Finally, making an assertion doesn't mean that you're stating fact. It's a declared opinion. It's my view. Funnily enough, I suspect this last minor point, which is completely meaningless in the discussion, will interest you the most. The stuff about people being safe before risking their lives to come here and the boats starting to stop and lives saved appears to be of less interest.

Oh yes, you're right in one sense. While I have sympathy for people that come from wretched situations I don't profess to have the answers and nor do I immerse myself in their personal situations. I'm at arms length and don't profess otherwise. Do you profess otherwise ?

people dying on the seas. I remember the abbot government refusing bipartisan support to the Malaysian solution; whereby we would swap economic refugees to Malaysia, for Burmese & Thai refugees, caught up in the jails of the Malaysian system.

no help from abbot there to stop the drownings.

the boats were stopping again, after the Rudd government started up the New guinea solution, & re-opened Manis Island, with the promise No one would get settled into Australia, who'd arrived by boats via Sth-East Asia.

...the Indonesians had kittens with the surprise announcement, which caught them with their shorts down & their fingers in the Caviar jar. they panicked jumping onto the media to scream, "they didn't speak to us first"... hip pocket nerve again.

[Biffen 12,947]

Monotone Tony is now only capable of speaking 81 words per minute as opposed to 160 before the election .

He has to repeat himself two or three times because he is too slow to think of a beige answer.

What a half wit we have.

How on earth did he get a pass at Oxford ?

FMD-he couldn't run a choko vine up a dunny wall.

Perhaps our dumbest looking PM ever.Certainly the stupidest in speech EVER.

One term only if lucky.

Edited January 19, 2014 by Biffen

[Hannibal 5,814]

people dying on the seas. I remember the abbot government refusing bipartisan support to the Malaysian solution; whereby we would swap economic refugees to Malaysia, for Burmese & Thai refugees, caught up in the jails of the Malaysian system.

no help from abbot there to stop the drownings.

t

Bad policy is bad policy.

[daisycutter 29,738]

81% had no papers...very different meaning. These people are fleeing and it's very possible many would never have had paperwork In the first place.

As for the comment re arriving by air, the majority of known ILLEGALS (overstayers) arrive by air...you are confusing boat people (legal asylum seekers) with illegal immigrants...how many boat people are you aware of that hold tourist or working holiday visas?

Funny how you use a labour view as if it is meant to convince us of a point in your argument. You stated your what you now call "view" as a "fact" ... nice back peddling.

None of us want to see these people risking their lives at sea and only an [censored] would think we do. You claim to be concerned about their lives but that is really typical right wing speak for "we don't want these people here at all". You claim to care about their well being but really don't care at all...the fact that you call them illegals, speaks volumes for your regard for see people and their welfare...as does your belief that these people are not fleeing danger.

hardtack, i would expect people who can fly to indonesia and have enough dollars left to pay the people smuggliers would at one stage have had papers

[daisycutter 29,738]

hat a half wit we have.

How on earth did he get a pass at Oxford ?

didn't we just have a discussion on teacher quality?

sack all the teachers and revoke all degrees obtained in the last 20 years

[hardtack 10,627]

hardtack, i would expect people who can fly to indonesia and have enough dollars left to pay the people smuggliers would at one stage have had papers

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/a-systematic-rebuttal-of-the-myths-about-asylum-seekers/

Why do people come without documentation?

Some people don’t have any identification, because they’ve never had it, they’ve had it taken away by people smugglers or persecutors, they’ve lost it, or they’ve destroyed it. In Afghanistan most people don’t have passports. The most common form of identification is the national ID ortazkira, which is held by about 70% of Afghans. The only clients I’ve had who have destroyed their ID have done so out at sea under the instruction of their boat’s captain. They felt they had no choice.

But by far the most common reason for why people don’t bring identification is because they flee without warning to escape danger. Abdul, for example, had to leave suddenly because the Taliban threatened to kill him. He didn’t have time to go back to his house, get his tazkira, or say goodbye to his family.