Kevin Rudd and the ALP voters in this country want you all to rot on PNG!

Stay away!!!

:o

That's a bit harsh. I'd just tell them to take a number and get to the end of the smacking queue! >:(

"Illegal Immigrant"   ;D

"queue"   ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:57pm:

"Illegal Immigrant"   ;D "queue"   ;D

"Little_pecker"  ;D

“Illegal” again.

Not illegal to seek asylum.

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:59pm:

“Illegal” again. Not illegal to seek asylum.

No one ever said it was. Gawd, you're slow on the uptake, aren't you?

Quote:

To Illegal Immigrant Asylum Seeking Boat People

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 4:01pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:59pm: “Illegal” again. Not illegal to seek asylum. No one ever said it was. Gawd, you're slow on the uptake, aren't you?

"illegal immigrant"   ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 4:09pm:

"illegal immigrant"   ;D

greggerypeccary  ;D

FriYAY wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 3:50pm:

Kevin Rudd and the ALP voters in this country want you all to rot on PNG! Stay away!!! :o

No, we want and demand onshore processing, quick assessments, then either settled or gone.

It's con-servatives that we want to rot... and we don't really care where, as long as they do so.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 4:01pm:

St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:59pm: “Illegal” again. Not illegal to seek asylum. No one ever said it was. Gawd, you're slow on the uptake, aren't you?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Crap!

Kat wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 5:05pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 4:01pm: St George of the Garden wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 3:59pm: “Illegal” again. Not illegal to seek asylum. No one ever said it was. Gawd, you're slow on the uptake, aren't you? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Crap!

Another slow dope...

"To Illegal Immigrant Asylum Seeking Boat People"


"illegal immigrant"   ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 5:41pm:

"To Illegal Immigrant Asylum Seeking Boat People" "illegal immigrant"   ;D

I think he means that Tony has turned them into illegal immigrants by towing them all over the seven seas  :D

There are no illegal asylum seekers.  Thus speaks the Law.  The ONLY question is how they are handled and housed etc.

discussion ends.....

They may have been asylum seeker when they crossed the border of their home countries and arrived in the first safe country. But when they leave the countries where they are not threatened illegally and then try to enter another country, Australia,  also illegally, then they are 'illegal maritime arrivals' and illegal immigrants who seek not asylum but permanent settlement under the guise of being asylum seekers.

When TPVs were introduced by Howard, they rioted because nothing less than permanent settlement will suit them. Asylum is not enough, it is not what they re seeking.

Soren wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:40pm:

They may have been asylum seeker when they crossed the border of their home countries and arrived in the first safe country. But when they leave the countries where they are not threatened illegally and then try to enter another country, Australia,  also illegally, then they are 'illegal maritime arrivals' and illegal immigrants who seek not asylum but permanent settlement under the guise of being asylum seekers.

Incorrect.

However, I'll give you the chance to substantiate your claim if you wish.

Soren wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:40pm:

They may have been asylum seeker when they crossed the border of their home countries and arrived in the first safe country. But when they leave the countries where they are not threatened illegally and then try to enter another country, Australia,  also illegally, then they are 'illegal maritime arrivals' and illegal immigrants who seek not asylum but permanent settlement under the guise of being asylum seekers.

"For the purposes of this Act, a person is an unauthorised maritime arrival if ... "

http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2013C00679/Html/Volume_1#_Toc371587518

Migration Act 1958, 23 November 2013 (Current)

Soren wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 8:40pm:

When TPVs were introduced by Howard, they rioted because nothing less than permanent settlement will suit them. Asylum is not enough, it is not what they re seeking.

But what is asylum without the assurance of enduring security?

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2014 at 10:51pm:

Soren wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 8:40pm: When TPVs were introduced by Howard, they rioted because nothing less than permanent settlement will suit them. Asylum is not enough, it is not what they re seeking. But what is asylum without the assurance of enduring security?

There is assurance of enduring security and safety from what they fled. There is, in other words, assured asylum. What there isn't (any more and should never have been expected as a matter of entitlement) is assured migration outcome, that is, permanent settlement. 

These are different although neighbouring concept and this is why, whaddayaknow, we even have two different words for them: asylum and migration.

The refugees sitting in camps are asylum seekers who have been granted asylum. Now they are waiting for the next step, a completely different and separate step, re-settlement in a country that will take them.

The boat people want to fuse the two things into one and sail straight to the final settlement outcome.

They are not so much asylum seekers but migration seekers. This is why they are seen as queue jumpers.

Baaaaaaaaahahahahahahaha

Oh man, that's funny!!! I wish fishing was this easy!

I wonder if the morons bite once you release them?

Let's give it a go.....


Darn these illegal, queue jumping, country shopping, illegal boat people.


:P :P :P

Soren wrote on Jan 23^rd, 2014 at 8:33am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 10:51pm: Soren wrote on Jan 22nd, 2014 at 8:40pm: When TPVs were introduced by Howard, they rioted because nothing less than permanent settlement will suit them. Asylum is not enough, it is not what they re seeking. But what is asylum without the assurance of enduring security? There is assurance of enduring security and safety from what they fled. There is, in other words, assured asylum. What there isn't (any more and should never have been expected as a matter of entitlement) is assured migration outcome, that is, permanent settlement.  These are different although neighbouring concept and this is why, whaddayaknow, we even have two different words for them: asylum and migration. The refugees sitting in camps are asylum seekers who have been granted asylum. Now they are waiting for the next step, a completely different and separate step, re-settlement in a country that will take them. The boat people want to fuse the two things into one and sail straight to the final settlement outcome. They are not so much asylum seekers but migration seekers. This is why they are seen as queue jumpers.

Actually there is not the assurance of enduring security and safety from what they fled as Indonesia is not a signatory to the refugee convention so the risk of refoulement is a threat in Indonesia.

Indonesia generally may not actively expel asylum seekers, but it usually does little to determine the authenticity of refugees' claims of persecution, leaving them in legal limbo in camps in conditions that would be intolerable in places like Australia.

The perception in countries like Indonesia is that, while Australia is prepared to support and partake in wars that cause these mass migrations of persecuted peoples (e.g. Iraq and Afghanistan), it is hardly affected (relative to nations like Indonesia) by the blowback of mass migrations. What Indonesians perceive of Australia (regarding irregular arrivals by boat of asylum seekers) is irrational hysteria over what is a fraction of the problem that Indonesia faces.