Would you change your views on asylum seekers  and their "rights" if we were not party to the UN and were under no obligation to take them in??

No

So if we exit the UN and have no obligation to take them even though they would have NO rights your still happy for them to arrive in their thousands?

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

Would you change your views on asylum seekers  and their "rights" if we were not party to the UN and were under no obligation to take them in??

No.

Negatory.

Me neither.

:)

thats interesting.

becuase all of you quote the UN this the UN that.

But it shows that regardless what the situation is, IE we are not party to the UN and the legalaties that go with it, and that would exclude anyone from claiming asylum, you ppl still think we should take them  in.'

Very interesting, so yours acceptance of these has nothing to do with us being in the UN. Yet you quote the UN as it is convenient, but when it taken away, you'd still take these bludgers in??


Why?

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:10pm:

So if we exit the UN and have no obligation to take them even though they would have NO rights your still happy for them to arrive in their thousands?

Explain what you mean by 'No rights'.

Do you mean that they can't be fed, clothed, sheltered?

Or do you mean 'legal rights' whereby the Govt of the day could drop asylum seekers in the middle of the desert and tell them to make their own way?

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

thats interesting. becuase all of you quote the UN this the UN that. But it shows that regardless what the situation is, IE we are not party to the UN and the legalaties that go with it, and that would exclude anyone from claiming asylum, you ppl still think we should take them  in.' Very interesting, so yours acceptance of these has nothing to do with us being in the UN. Yet you quote the UN as it is convenient, but when it taken away, you'd still take these bludgers in?? Why?

If your house burned down and you had nowhere to sleep I'd even take you in, woof....

:)

No rights as in they'd have the same rights as what ppl would have who would want to claim asylum in Nth Korea or China for example.

no rights as in when they turn up we just put them on a plane back to where they originated from, no legal appeals no sob stories, just on a plane see ya later.

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

thats interesting. becuase all of you quote the UN this the UN that. But it shows that regardless what the situation is, IE we are not party to the UN and the legalaties that go with it, and that would exclude anyone from claiming asylum, you ppl still think we should take them  in.' Very interesting, so yours acceptance of these has nothing to do with us being in the UN. Yet you quote the UN as it is convenient, but when it taken away, you'd still take these bludgers in?? Why?

You seem to have no understanding of what an asylum seeker actually is.

I'll help you: "a person who, from fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, social group, or political opinion, has crossed an international frontier into a country in which he or she hopes to be granted refugee status".

Why would you call those people "bludgers"?

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

Would you change your views on asylum seekers  and their "rights" if we were not party to the UN and were under no obligation to take them in??

IMO, we, Australia, should not be a member state of that criminal entity, called, the 'United Nations'.


I will not be changing my views on asylum seekers - we should give them sanctuary.

I have not changed my views on moslem 'asylum seekers' - we should NOT, NOT, NOT, give them residency in Australia.
....because moslem 'cultural' 'values' are incompatible with a culture that seeks the expression of truth, justice, freedom.i




Moslem 'asylum seekers', should be directed to seek sanctuary, in moslem/Sharia jurisdictions.
[....moslems insist that ISLAM is superior, so let moslems seek sanctuary, in a 'superior' moslem jurisdiction - where moslems will be sure to be happy and content.    :P     ]

And, because of the unremitting threat of acts of terror from those moslems living among us, the forced internment of all persons self declaring as moslems should be seriously considered by ALL Western nations, imo.

The values which Western societies cherish [truth, justice, freedom], are totally incompatible with moslems/ISLAMIC 'values'.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:43pm:

You seem to have no understanding of what an asylum seeker actually is. I'll help you: "a person who, from fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, social group, or political opinion, has crossed an international frontier into a country in which he or she hopes to be granted refugee status". Why would you call those people "bludgers"?

;D You can't be serious. It's been reported that even after 5 years in Australia the great majority of Afghan 'refugees' are still bludging on the dole.

It took me two weeks to get a job in a factory when I arrived here ~ English not necessary.

These very same fraudsters who arrive here claiming persecution at home are very soon back in their own country visiting 'family and friends' only months after being granted Australian citizenship rights.

The armadas of Sri Lankans arriving here in recent months has exposed the whole 'asylum-seeker' industry as a rort and a racket by people simply wanting to access the benefits of living in a First World country that has a generous Social Welfare system.

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:10pm:

So if we exit the UN and have no obligation to take them even though they would have NO rights your still happy for them to arrive in their thousands?

They dont arrive in the thousands

SOB

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:01pm:

Would you change your views on asylum seekers  and their "rights" if we were not party to the UN and were under no obligation to take them in??

Unfortunately our politicians are running scared of ... Quote: 'International opinion' ~ end Quote ... and are terrified of exercising discrimination with their immigration policy lest they be labeled as racists, xenophobes, and bigots by the ... Quote: 'International community' ~ and the leaders of our own ethnic communities.

Generally speaking, our federal politicians are not only poorly educated, but are also of very modest and mediocre intelligence.

Instead of being broadly-read, they concentrated on getting a Bachelors in Law as a stepping-stone for a political career.

And then when they join one of the parties in Canberra they very soon learn it's not a democracy, and they have to slavishly follow the party line.

Leftwingers such as Howard, Abbott and Gillard have conspired to bury Anglo-Australia under sedimentary layers of Third World immigrants.

Yadda wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

I have not changed my views on moslem 'asylum seekers' - we should NOT, NOT, NOT, give them residency in Australia. ....because moslem 'cultural' 'values' are incompatible with a culture that seeks the expression of truth, justice, freedom.i Moslem 'asylum seekers', should be directed to seek sanctuary, in moslem/Sharia jurisdictions. [....moslems insist that ISLAM is superior, so let moslems seek sanctuary, in a 'superior' moslem jurisdiction - where moslems will be sure to be happy and content.    :P     ] And, because of the unremitting threat of acts of terror from those moslems living among us, the forced internment of all persons self declaring as moslems should be seriously considered by ALL Western nations, imo. The values which Western societies cherish [truth, justice, freedom], are totally incompatible with moslems/ISLAMIC 'values'.

Winner.

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

thats interesting. becuase all of you quote the UN this the UN that. But it shows that regardless what the situation is, IE we are not party to the UN and the legalaties that go with it, and that would exclude anyone from claiming asylum, you ppl still think we should take them  in.' Very interesting, so yours acceptance of these has nothing to do with us being in the UN. Yet you quote the UN as it is convenient, but when it taken away, you'd still take these bludgers in?? Why?

What do you mean bludgers? They are refugees. Fleeing their country from violence etc. When they get visas they work if they can get jobs.

SOB

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

Leftwingers such as Howard, Abbott and Gillard have conspired to bury Anglo-Australia under sedimentary layers of Third World immigrants.

Hahahaha  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Our members of the Coalition cheer squad will have just choked on their cornflakes.



Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

Unfortunately our politicians are running scared of ... Quote: 'International opinion' ~ end Quote ... and are terrified of exercising discrimination with their immigration policy lest they be labeled as racists, xenophobes, and bigots by the ... Quote: 'International community' ~ and the leaders of our own ethnic communities.

Well actually no. A majority of Australians are comfortable with our immigration. We all reap the benefits of a growing economy caused by an increasing population. We also don't want our nation to become an apartheid one like South Africa was.

Would you change your views of

No

x3.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 11:44am:

Well actually no. A majority of Australians are comfortable with our immigration. We all reap the benefits of a growing economy caused by an increasing population. We also don't want our nation to become an apartheid one like South Africa was.

I wouldnt agree, I would say the majority of AUstralians want a halt to all Arab Muslim immigration. We find thier values incompatible to modern Australian  society. Being a multicultural country does not mean we have to accept all cultures, we have the ability and the right to choose. Arab Muslim immigration has been a resounding failure in this country.

ian wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 12:06pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 11:44am: Well actually no. A majority of Australians are comfortable with our immigration. We all reap the benefits of a growing economy caused by an increasing population. We also don't want our nation to become an apartheid one like South Africa was. I wouldnt agree, I would say the majority of AUstralians want a halt to all Arab Muslim immigration. We find thier values incompatible to modern Australian  society. Being a multicultural country does not mean we have to accept all cultures, we have the ability and the right to choose. Arab Muslim immigration has been a resounding failure in this country.

So are asian muslims acceptable then? How about Arab Christians? How about Muslims that come indirectly though the UK or NZ? How are you going to screen immigrants to detect if they are muslim or not? What about people who convert to Islam who are already here?

It is totally impractical

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

You can't be serious. It's been reported that even after 5 years in Australia the great majority of Afghan 'refugees' are still bludging on the dole.

If by "the dole", you mean unemployment benefits, you are incorrect.

I suggest you read the report again.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 10:43am: You can't be serious. It's been reported that even after 5 years in Australia the great majority of Afghan 'refugees' are still bludging on the dole. If by "the dole", you mean unemployment benefits, you are incorrect. I suggest you read the report again.

*********


Quote:

The people it’s bringing in are costing us billions, with 85 per cent of refugees on Centrelink benefits in their first five years here. Worse, it’s the “refugees” who push in—the boat people we don’t pick, and who exploit the Government’s weak laws—who cost us most. The vast majority of boat people say they are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka, and these are exactly the refugees most likely to be unemployed and living on welfare, even after five years. Just 9 per cent of Afghan adults have a job and 94 per cent receive benefits, which means every boatload of Afghans landing here is a boatload almost entirely of people we’ll be paying handouts to for years. And since January last year, more than 3300 Afghans have sailed here. It’s the same story among Iranian adults, just 12 per cent of whom work.

One source of many.

Have a Nice Day.  :P

Link does not work.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 12:26pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 10:43am: You can't be serious. It's been reported that even after 5 years in Australia the great majority of Afghan 'refugees' are still bludging on the dole. If by "the dole", you mean unemployment benefits, you are incorrect. I suggest you read the report again. ********* Quote: The people it’s bringing in are costing us billions, with 85 per cent of refugees on Centrelink benefits in their first five years here. Worse, it’s the “refugees” who push in—the boat people we don’t pick, and who exploit the Government’s weak laws—who cost us most. The vast majority of boat people say they are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka, and these are exactly the refugees most likely to be unemployed and living on welfare, even after five years. Just 9 per cent of Afghan adults have a job and 94 per cent receive benefits, which means every boatload of Afghans landing here is a boatload almost entirely of people we’ll be paying handouts to for years. And since January last year, more than 3300 Afghans have sailed here. It’s the same story among Iranian adults, just 12 per cent of whom work. One source of many. Have a Nice Day.  :P

If by "the dole", you mean unemployment benefits, you are incorrect.

I suggest you read the report again.

I also suggest that you provide a proper link: "source/" isn't a valid web site.

Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 28^th, 2013 at 3:58pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 12:26pm: Lord Herbert wrote on Apr 28th, 2013 at 10:43am: You can't be serious. It's been reported that even after 5 years in Australia the great majority of Afghan 'refugees' are still bludging on the dole. If by "the dole", you mean unemployment benefits, you are incorrect. I suggest you read the report again. ********* Quote: The people it’s bringing in are costing us billions, with 85 per cent of refugees on Centrelink benefits in their first five years here. Worse, it’s the “refugees” who push in—the boat people we don’t pick, and who exploit the Government’s weak laws—who cost us most. The vast majority of boat people say they are from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka, and these are exactly the refugees most likely to be unemployed and living on welfare, even after five years. Just 9 per cent of Afghan adults have a job and 94 per cent receive benefits, which means every boatload of Afghans landing here is a boatload almost entirely of people we’ll be paying handouts to for years. And since January last year, more than 3300 Afghans have sailed here. It’s the same story among Iranian adults, just 12 per cent of whom work. One source of many. Have a Nice Day.  :P

But no actual link to it . . . . .. 

SOB

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:32pm:

No rights as in they'd have the same rights as what ppl would have who would want to claim asylum in Nth Korea or China for example.

Quote:

Doug Quixote 19 Oct 2011 8:00:23pm Withdrawing from the Convention would place us as a maverick. Over 140 nations are signatories, including all the western democracies. Is that the message we want to send to the world, even if we wanted to repeal our own Migration Act and start again? It may be desirable to work within the UN, to see whether there is any groundswell to modify the Convention itself. But withdraw unilaterally? No thank you. http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3577538.html

Quite frankly ...

It AIN'T gonna HAPPEN !

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

thats interesting. becuase all of you quote the UN this the UN that. But it shows that regardless what the situation is, IE we are not party to the UN and the legalaties that go with it, and that would exclude anyone from claiming asylum, you ppl still think we should take them  in.' Very interesting, so yours acceptance of these has nothing to do with us being in the UN. Yet you quote the UN as it is convenient, but when it taken away, you'd still take these bludgers in?? Why?

Thoughts?

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:43pm:

woof woof wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 8:24pm: thats interesting. becuase all of you quote the UN this the UN that. But it shows that regardless what the situation is, IE we are not party to the UN and the legalaties that go with it, and that would exclude anyone from claiming asylum, you ppl still think we should take them  in.' Very interesting, so yours acceptance of these has nothing to do with us being in the UN. Yet you quote the UN as it is convenient, but when it taken away, you'd still take these bludgers in?? Why? You seem to have no understanding of what an asylum seeker actually is. I'll help you: "a person who, from fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, social group, or political opinion, has crossed an international frontier into a country in which he or she hopes to be granted refugee status". Why would you call those people "bludgers"?

Because they sit around all day languishing in detention. They accept all that free food and don't offer to do any chores in return.

No.

People smuggling still needs to be stopped.

Australia MUST decide, who comes into this country, when and where from.

Karnal wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 10:07am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 8:43pm: woof woof wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 8:24pm: thats interesting. becuase all of you quote the UN this the UN that. But it shows that regardless what the situation is, IE we are not party to the UN and the legalaties that go with it, and that would exclude anyone from claiming asylum, you ppl still think we should take them  in.' Very interesting, so yours acceptance of these has nothing to do with us being in the UN. Yet you quote the UN as it is convenient, but when it taken away, you'd still take these bludgers in?? Why? You seem to have no understanding of what an asylum seeker actually is. I'll help you: "a person who, from fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, social group, or political opinion, has crossed an international frontier into a country in which he or she hopes to be granted refugee status". Why would you call those people "bludgers"? Because they sit around all day languishing in detention. They accept all that free food and don't offer to do any chores in return.

Not even the dishes?  :o

How about the floors?

http://www.stathakis.com/Portals/153792/images/janitor-resized-600.jpg

woof woof wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 8:24pm:

thats interesting. becuase all of you quote the UN this the UN that. But it shows that regardless what the situation is, IE we are not party to the UN and the legalaties that go with it, and that would exclude anyone from claiming asylum, you ppl still think we should take them  in.' Very interesting, so yours acceptance of these has nothing to do with us being in the UN. Yet you quote the UN as it is convenient, but when it taken away, you'd still take these bludgers in?? Why?

The reason is that many people feel that we have a moral and ethical obligation to provide sanctuary for people who are fleeing persecution in there own countries.

Clearly there is no point appealing to the morals and ethics of people who describe asylum seekers as "bludgers", "scum" etc so instead it is pointed out that we also have obligations under UN conventions and human rights laws.

I think that answers your question.

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

woof woof wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 8:24pm: thats interesting. becuase all of you quote the UN this the UN that. But it shows that regardless what the situation is, IE we are not party to the UN and the legalaties that go with it, and that would exclude anyone from claiming asylum, you ppl still think we should take them  in.' Very interesting, so yours acceptance of these has nothing to do with us being in the UN. Yet you quote the UN as it is convenient, but when it taken away, you'd still take these bludgers in?? Why? The reason is that many people feel that we have a moral and ethical obligation to provide sanctuary for people who are fleeing persecution in there own countries. Clearly there is no point appealing to the morals and ethics of people who describe asylum seekers as "bludgers", "scum" etc so instead it is pointed out that we also have obligations under UN conventions and human rights laws. I think that answers your question.

that about sums it up beautifully Oh Yeah ...

The_Barnacle wrote on Apr 30^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

woof woof wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 8:24pm: thats interesting. becuase all of you quote the UN this the UN that. But it shows that regardless what the situation is, IE we are not party to the UN and the legalaties that go with it, and that would exclude anyone from claiming asylum, you ppl still think we should take them  in.' Very interesting, so yours acceptance of these has nothing to do with us being in the UN. Yet you quote the UN as it is convenient, but when it taken away, you'd still take these bludgers in?? Why? The reason is that many people feel that we have a moral and ethical obligation to provide sanctuary for people who are fleeing persecution in there own countries. Clearly there is no point appealing to the morals and ethics of people who describe asylum seekers as "bludgers", "scum" etc so instead it is pointed out that we also have obligations under UN conventions and human rights laws. I think that answers your question.

Now a new thread will be started so they can ignore that answer.

SOB