Australia and refugees

[pErvinalia]

You're as predictable as every old conservative on the fucking planet. You come armed with a shitload of opinions and no hope of ever accepting that you might have to change them. ONCE AGAIN: THERE IS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT SEEKING ASYLUM. If you think there is, put up. Otherwise shut your fucked up conservative hole.

Oh right, it's so legal, they keep them locked up.
So you think it's perfectly legal to FALSELY seek asylum?

Are you for real? For the love of god, do some fucking research before you open your retarded trap. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention ... f_Refugees

And as I said 90% of them are given refugee status. What retarded evidence are you using to suggest that they are "falsely" seeking asylum? And no, the set-in-stone opinions of some old bigoted coot don't count.

And I'm not conservative, by the way, never have been.

Yeah, and the pope is not Catholic. You are utterly predicable on asylum seekers and climate change. Conservative right down to the core.

I just believe that a country has the right to deter people from FALSLY seeking asylum. If that fucks up GENUINE asylum seekers, then that's a shame, but it's not the fault of the country, it's the fault of the BOGUS asylum seekers, and people like you, who encourage them.

No, the problem is ignorant people like you who don't have the first fucking clue of what they are talking about, and provide the prime target for dog-whistling politicians to spread the fear.

Which the vast majority are. And the fact that they ignore poor countries, and home in on rich ones, is perfect proof of that.

No, it's perfect proof of the fact that you have no understanding of the UN protocols concerning refugees, and the harsh realities of the transit countries.

[mistermack]

You silly fucker, it's the ABUSE of the rules on refugees, that is the problem.

I don't think you'll ever get it. There is none so blind..... ... ..

[pErvinalia]

Lol. No evidence. No points addressed. Just opinions. Piss off.

[mistermack]

Lol. No evidence. No points addressed. Just opinions. Piss off.

Brilliant.
I'm in awe.

[Daedalus]

Lol. No evidence. No points addressed. Just opinions. Piss off.

Brilliant.
I'm in awe.

Do you HAVE any evidence?

[mistermack]

Do you HAVE any evidence?

Nothing. Apart from expose after expose by journalists, of the gangs that traffic people across borders for money.
Of the coaching that they get, on what to say when they arrive, to strengthen their claim as a terrified refugee. And even after all that, the fact that the dumber ones will say in an interview with journalists that they are claiming asylum, and in the next breath, say that they came to work to get money.

These stories are so accepted now, the journalists don't even bother doing them any more. But I don't propose to research and amass a load of links. If you haven't seen the same things, then you don't WANT to know.

When it comes to cases approved, it's meaningless. How do you prove a negative, and where does the benefit of the doubt go?
It's only the dummies who disprove their own cases who get refused. Because it costs more to refuse and deport than to allow.

Deporting ALL of them to PNG is a great idea. They'll be safe from their "opressors" there.

[Daedalus]

Do you HAVE any evidence?

Nothing. Apart from expose after expose by journalists, of the gangs that traffic people across borders for money.
Of the coaching that they get, on what to say when they arrive, to strengthen their claim as a terrified refugee. And even after all that, the fact that the dumber ones will say in an interview with journalists that they are claiming asylum, and in the next breath, say that they came to work to get money.

These stories are so accepted now, the journalists don't even bother doing them any more. But I don't propose to research and amass a load of links. If you haven't seen the same things, then you don't WANT to know.

When it comes to cases approved, it's meaningless. How do you prove a negative, and where does the benefit of the doubt go?
It's only the dummies who disprove their own cases who get refused. Because it costs more to refuse and deport than to allow.

Deporting ALL of them to PNG is a great idea. They'll be safe from their "opressors" there.

Do you have links to the articles you're relying on?

[mistermack]

Do you have links to the articles you're relying on?

Find your own. I'm not your researcher, and I can't be bothered.

[pErvinalia]

Do you HAVE any evidence?

Nothing. Apart from expose after expose by journalists, of the gangs that traffic people across borders for money.
Of the coaching that they get, on what to say when they arrive, to strengthen their claim as a terrified refugee. And even after all that, the fact that the dumber ones will say in an interview with journalists that they are claiming asylum, and in the next breath, say that they came to work to get money.

These stories are so accepted now, the journalists don't even bother doing them any more. But I don't propose to research and amass a load of links. If you haven't seen the same things, then you don't WANT to know.

This thread is about Australia. The refugee "problem" here is totally different to Europe.

Deporting ALL of them to PNG is a great idea. They'll be safe from their "opressors" there.

Actually, they'll be committed to a life of misery and crime if they get sent there. It's a fucking insanely cruel "solution". And it's not actually meant to be a "solution". It's meant to simply stop the boats. There's probably little intention to send anyone to PNG. The problem is, what happens if the boats keep coming? We are going to be sending people to an extremely poor country with a high poverty rate, high corruption, high sexual abuse, criminalised homosexuality, and a place where we ACCEPT refugees from.

[pErvinalia]

....

[Hermit]

Do you HAVE any evidence?

Nothing. Apart from expose after expose by journalists

Oh, great. Another Daily Mail reader.

[Daedalus]

Do you have links to the articles you're relying on?

Find your own. I'm not your researcher, and I can't be bothered.

So you're relying on articles you don't have, to contradict evidence that rEvolutionist has already provided.

I guess you just enjoy looking foolish.

[pErvinalia]

To be fair, I haven't actually provided a lot of sourced evidence. But I can source that stuff if required.

[Daedalus]

To be fair, I haven't actually provided a lot of sourced evidence. But I can source that stuff if required.

You've provided more than nothing, which is all your "challenger" is offering. Besides, you made specific numerical claims that can be checked.

[mistermack]

Do you have links to the articles you're relying on?

Find your own. I'm not your researcher, and I can't be bothered.

So you're relying on articles you don't have, to contradict evidence that rEvolutionist has already provided.

I guess you just enjoy looking foolish.

I'm not relying on articles. I'm giving my opinion. And if I look foolish to fools, why should that bother me?

I'm not so stupid as not to recognise a pathetic attempt at trolling. Being an incompetent troll is incredibly sad.
Study Seth and Coito, it you want to get better at it.