Another boatload of asylum seekers intercepted by Navy

Mofra · 24 April 2010

Lukas said:
"They are coming here for one reason only...we are a welfare state"
Can you provide evidence of this extreme theory?

That's actually incorrect, and a common misconception of those who know little on the subject beyond a typical mistrust of foreigners.

Until a temporary protection Visa is issued (regardless of method of entry) they cannot claim any Government benefits. Once a Visa is granted, every single person I have spoken to or heard of has expressed a desire to work.

In my experience the dole bludger element in society has one common factor - born and raised in Australia.

Mofra · 24 April 2010

bunyip said:
Well whatever Howard did to stop the invasion of boat people, I wish Rudd would show enough intelligence and common sense to do the same.

Unfortunately, we need a government that is focussed more on action and effect, rather than spin and opinion polls.

Calliope · 24 April 2010

Mofra said:
Until a temporary protection Visa is issued (regardless of method of entry) they cannot claim any Government benefits.

They don't have to claim benefits. From the moment they arrive in Australian waters they are looked after and all the needs met by our welfare state until they get their visas and then it's open slather.

Once a Visa is granted, every single person I have spoken to or heard of has expressed a desire to work.

Well they would, wouldn't they? They know a gullible fool when they see one.

In my experience the dole bludger element in society has one common factor - born and raised in Australia.

Your experience in the real world is obviously very limited, if you have to rubbish law abiding white Australians to show your preference for illegals.. What made you so bigoted?

Mofra · 24 April 2010

Haha read the above for a laugh ^^^

Might have to refer a few people to this via hotlink (born & raised in Australia = white only. Classic!)

People actually think this

(Just slipped in prior to activating the ignore list - what a great function)

Chris45 · 24 April 2010

About 95% of Australians are white.

Mofra · 24 April 2010

Chris45 said:
About 95% of Australians are white.

89.3% according to wiki.

bunyip · 24 April 2010

Mofra said:
Unfortunately, we need a government that is focussed more on action and effect, rather than spin and opinion polls.

That's why I'll be voting against Rudd - spin and opinion polls are his stock in trade.
In the history of Australia there's never been another Prime Minister, not even Whitlam, who has matched Rudd's talent for stuffing up pretty much whatever he touches.
His handling of the illegal immigration issue is his most glaringly obvious stuff up, but there are plenty of others.
He'd be battling to run a bath successfully, let alone run a country.

Chris45 · 24 April 2010

Mofra said:
89.3% according to wiki.

Just rechecked:
According to http://www.immi.gov.au, in 1988 Anglo-Celt & other European = 93.8%
According to wiki and my calculations, in 2006 Anglo-Celt & other European = 91.8%
You reckon we're down to 89.3%
Aaarrgghh! The coloureds are taking over!!!

Calliope · 24 April 2010

Mofra said:
Haha read the above for a laugh ^^^

Might have to refer a few people to this via hotlink (born & raised in Australia = white only. Classic!)

People actually think this

(Just slipped in prior to activating the ignore list - what a great function)

It seems like you have got a slight case of hysteria. You know quite well that you can't ignore me. I have your measure. Your mission on this thread is to get support for aiding and abetting illegal immigration. Apparently you also get a kick out of denigrating white Australians, if they don't love the illegals as much as you. What is your motive?

My mission is to prick the ego of pompous do-gooders. That is not easy with you...your hide is too thick. Unlike you I have no ulterior motive. It is just a fun thing.

Over to you.

Calliope · 25 April 2010

Mofra,

I think today would be a suitable time for you to reflect on your ignorant racial slurs about white Australians.

I know you can't answer because you have backed yourself into a corner that you can't weasel your way out of.

Mofra · 27 April 2010

Chris45 said:
Just rechecked:
According to http://www.immi.gov.au, in 1988 Anglo-Celt & other European = 93.8%
According to wiki and my calculations, in 2006 Anglo-Celt & other European = 91.8%
You reckon we're down to 89.3%
Aaarrgghh! The coloureds are taking over!!!

If ACA or TT have subscribed to this thread, their week's programming is already sorted out

Mofra · 27 April 2010

bunyip said:
That's why I'll be voting against Rudd - spin and opinion polls are his stock in trade.
In the history of Australia there's never been another Prime Minister, not even Whitlam, who has matched Rudd's talent for stuffing up pretty much whatever he touches.
His handling of the illegal immigration issue is his most glaringly obvious stuff up, but there are plenty of others.
He'd be battling to run a bath successfully, let alone run a country.

Probably an unfair comparison - Whitlam took responsibility for his failings (to a degree).
Rudd leaves his junior ministers to do the explaining, and then tries to hide the backflips on page 2 or 3 of a policy document.

The only way to stem the tide is to negotiate with Indonesia. Rudd wont work that out until someone else does first so he can steal their idea.

bunyip · 28 April 2010

Mofra said:
Probably an unfair comparison - Whitlam took responsibility for his failings (to a degree).
Rudd leaves his junior ministers to do the explaining, and then tries to hide the backflips on page 2 or 3 of a policy document.

The only way to stem the tide is to negotiate with Indonesia. Rudd wont work that out until someone else does first so he can steal their idea.

What is there to work out though - the Howard government already had it worked out for him. All Rudd had to do was continue their very effective policy.

I've often wondered why Rudd abandoned Howard's Pacific Solution, given how effective it was in curbing illegal immigration by boat people. The only answer I can come up with is that he was trying to appeal to voters by appearing humane and caring, as opposed to Howard's hard line policy towards illegals.

Mofra · 28 April 2010

bunyip said:
What is there to work out though - the Howard government already had it worked out for him. All Rudd had to do was continue their very effective policy.

I've often wondered why Rudd abandoned Howard's Pacific Solution, given how effective it was in curbing illegal immigration by boat people. The only answer I can come up with is that he was trying to appeal to voters by appearing humane and caring, as opposed to Howard's hard line policy towards illegals.

I don't believe the Rudd government is adept when it comnes to matters of international relations - the issue regarding a seat at the recent nuclear disarmament summit is a case in point.

The bolded part is something which I think most here would acknowledge - appearances tend to matter more than substance when it comes to Rudd. People Smugglers in Indonesia know that it's the poor fisherman at the end of the chain who will be prosecuted for crewing the boats captured by Australia as without sufficient diplomatic pressure the Indon government wont act against their own whilst a dollar is to be made.

Happy · 11 May 2010

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/11/2895907.htm?section=justin

Housing asylum seekers in motels 'common practice'

The Immigration Department says 79 asylum seekers are being accommodated at a motel in the northern Brisbane suburb of Virginia.
The Department would not comment on reports the hotel had been awarded a $1.2 million Government contract for at least six months to accommodate the group.
"All arrangements with the motel are commercial-in-confidence," Immigration Department spokesman Sandi Logan said.
Mr Logan says it has been common practice by successive governments to use motels. .....

Wander why isn't it mandatory to house all homeless people first?

newbie trader · 11 May 2010

Happy said:
Wander why isn't it mandatory to house all homeless people first?

Great question.

Bobby · 11 May 2010

Yep' its a pathetic back/hander to our own needy Aussie poor. :frown:

Like to say more without getting more infractions .

Bob.

Julia · 11 May 2010

Happy said:
Wander why isn't it mandatory to house all homeless people first?

Exactly. We have so many people, especially the mentally ill, living on the streets. Not only are these asylum seekers being accommodated at a four star level, given money for shopping etc., but they also receive immediate medical and dental care, something denied many Australians.

todster · 11 May 2010

Well if kevin can hang in there for 2 more terms he would have had as much time as Howard to do something about it

Duckman#72 · 11 May 2010

With a little bit of spin Rudd's previous policy disasters might rise like a Masterchef's souffle. Stay tuned for the following announcements:

Greg Combat to announce 100,000 unused pink batts will be converted into sleeping bags and distributed to the homeless around the country.

Julia Gillard to announce that the tens of thousands of BER funded "multi purpose undercover areas" that the schools never wanted in the first place will be converted to overnight shelter accommodation for the homeless.

Peter Garrett to announce that the homeless will be paid a Solar Energy Grant for linking their reflective pink batt sleeping bags into the electricity grid during daylight hours, thereby reducing Australia's overall carbon footprint as well as smashing Australia's unemployment rate to an all time low.

In one fell swoop, Rudd can clean up all his mess.

Duckman

Another boatload of asylum seekers intercepted by Navy

Mofra

Mofra

Calliope

Mofra

Chris45

Mofra

bunyip

Chris45

Calliope

Calliope

Mofra

Mofra

bunyip

Mofra

Happy

newbie trader

Bobby

Julia

In Memoriam

todster

Duckman#72

Similar threads

Another boatload of asylum seekers intercepted by Navy

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency