Grendel wrote on Mar 30
th, 2014 at 1:25pm:
Bam wrote on Mar 30
th, 2014 at 7:47am:
gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 30
th, 2014 at 7:08am:
Bam wrote on Mar 30
th, 2014 at 7:06am:
They come here because they know they can get illegal work on our farms and in many other businesses, no questions asked.
So then they are NOT legitimate asylum seekers???
Some are, some are not. It's why we need to process them - to weed out the greedy from among the persecuted.
We do then the pc brigade and their lawyers overturn the initial assessment which are in most cases valid.
We shouldn't penalise them though; they are the victims, not the criminals.
Really, and the country shoppers, and people smugglers and their families and economic refugees etc, etc...
The real criminals are the people smugglers and Australian businesses that employ people who do not have the legal right to work in Australia.
Not the war criminals and the rest I previously mentioned?
Smashing the people smugglers' business model does nothing if we do not also pursue the crooked Australian businesses with equal vigour and harsh penalties.
Do you honestly think considering most illegals end up on long term welfare that business is actually a large contributor to the problem?
Can you stop your silly
color highlighting
? It's lazy and makes it harder to respond to your points. Use quote tags, it's what they are for.
Your remarks about lawyers overturning the assessment is hypothetical nonsense, unless you can prove that every one of the assessments has been overturned in this manner. Which you can't because it's false. I could also point out people who have been
detained indefinitely after an adverse security assessment, but who have not been deported.
Yes, the asylum seekers, refugees, etc are victims. Victims of the people smugglers, taking their money, lying to them, and setting them adrift on leaky boats. I would rather save my ire for the people smugglers. I would rather bring people smugglers to justice than persecute their victims.
I said nothing about war criminals. For good reason, it is a silly argument. We also have war criminals arriving by plane with proper travel papers. Do we denigrate everyone arriving by plane?
Did I say businesses were a "large contributor to the problem"? No, I did not. Did I say that businesses illegally employed asylum seekers? No, I did not. Both are straw man arguments. But let me tell you something. When you've got the Weekly Times and the Herald Sun running articles this week on several farms in Victoria where illegal labour is employed, you know there's a problem because these papers do not generally denigrate businesses or farmers.
Also, your assertion that "most illegals end up on long term welfare" would be better for proof. (
They are not "illegals" by the way, that's Orwellian Coalition nonsense.)
"illegals".
However, these racists (ironically) spend more time watching American TV than they do watching local news. Thus, it's quite reasonable to expect them to use nonsensical terms designed to demonise people, who break no laws whatsoever, in order to help justify their irrational bigotry and hatred.
Forum
Pages: 
100 days without illegals (Read 27823 times)
