Santa1503559644 Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 The Honourable Member for O/T (Santa) has the floor: Santa: Would the Member for Winston and Speaker for the Government (Aloy) please explain the current refugee antics of the government, as its confusing not just the opposition! Speaker: Order! ORDER! Would the Member for Winston please answer the question!
50mxe20 Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 That is bizarre, like Rudd, I just don't get it.It's simple, we get Cuban terrorists instead of Indonesian ones.
aztec Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 It's simple, we get Cuban terrorists instead of Indonesian ones. Oh, I see, Cubans are a better class of terrorist. Gees, Howard must be a good negotiator to have convinced bush to take our Indonesian ones.
stahc Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 my question is to the minister for sport..............does this mean we can look forward to a volleyball gold medal at the next olympics
Steve C Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 It's a plan that has a crude logic... the sort of logic that children display when trying to develop solutions to 'unsavoury' problems. We house America's Cuban refugees as far away from their intended destination as it's possible to get; and the Yanks do the same for our illegal immigrants. Both Governments hope that the corresponding sets of detainees will represent a deterrent to others not wanting to be sent half way round the World as a reward for trying to illegally enter their preferred country of asylum. It also represents a "suck it and see whether it works" attitude towards developing solutions to a problem that isn't going away in a hurry. It could also lead to an explosion in Aussie based Samba schools and improved Latin dance performances on the local version of "Dancing With the Stars"...
Santa1503559644 Posted April 18, 2007 Author Posted April 18, 2007 Yawwwnnnn Speaker: Since it appears the Member for Winston is lost for words, we must assume he agrees the policy is a complete joke!
stahc Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 Speaker: Since it appears the Member for Winston is lost for words, we must assume he agrees the policy is a complete joke! he hasn't been up all night watching the volleyball has he
mello yello Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 my question is to the minister for sport..............does this mean we can look forward to a volleyball gold medal at the next olympics Nominated as best post of the day...Sports and Current Affairs 4 Gold indeed!!!!
Austen Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 While I don't pretend for one second to know the workings of the minds of the "boat people", I might of assumed that those attempting to enter Australia illegally, would see a USA "Green Card" as a worthy "second prize" ????? Worthy enough to encourage MORE people to attempt the trip ??? Maybe if "second prize" was a fully escorted 10-year tour of the Siberian Goulags it would not be contested so enthusiastically, but a "Green Card" ???? Austen.
stahc Posted April 18, 2007 Posted April 18, 2007 no second prizes here...............we're going for gold, gold gold to australia* *apologies to norman may and to santa for injecting sport into a serious topic
Santa1503559644 Posted April 19, 2007 Author Posted April 19, 2007 While I don't pretend for one second to know the workings of the minds of the "boat people", I might of assumed that those attempting to enter Australia illegally, would see a USA "Green Card" as a worthy "second prize" ?????Worthy enough to encourage MORE people to attempt the trip ??? Maybe if "second prize" was a fully escorted 10-year tour of the Siberian Goulags it would not be contested so enthusiastically, but a "Green Card" ???? Austen. I would have thought many would see the Green Card as first prize. After all - who would chose sleepy lil' relaxed & comfortable Oz, over the original article? Who would want comfortable, when you can go USA™ and live the American Dream™?
Mining Man Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 No doubt there will be Queenslanders welcoming this news, hoping it equally applies to the Mexicans invading their lands...
Aloysius Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 No doubt there will be Queenslanders welcoming this news, hoping it equally applies to the Mexicans invading their lands... It would be more palatable if they brought some of their superfluous water with them
DigitalObserver Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Refugees are not illegal immigrants. Why are we treating them as such?
Santa1503559644 Posted April 19, 2007 Author Posted April 19, 2007 Refugees are not illegal immigrants.Why are we treating them as such? You need reminding of the Howard View? *Refugees (ie - those who are fleeing persecution): dirty, thieving queue jumpers. *Illegal Immigrants (ie - those lured by lucre): hard-working, industrious, skills-shortage-fillers.
Aloysius Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Great deal of simplification going on here lads! Refugees are refugees Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants These two categories are not mutually exclusive. Any attempt to make them so is dishonest and unworthy - particularly of those refugees who are not illegal immigrants.
Steve C Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Great deal of simplification going on here lads!Refugees are refugees Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants These two categories are not mutually exclusive. Any attempt to make them so is dishonest and unworthy - particularly of those refugees who are not illegal immigrants. I guess that depends on whether you came from an Indonesian territory or a region claimed by Indonesia (especially Irianjia), before - or after the latest agreement our Government has made, that stabs any Irianjian fleeing the "Indonesianisation" of their homeland, in the back. When is a neighbour fleeing beatings, shootings and forced religious conversion deserving of being labelled an "Illegal Immigrant"? Answer: when it suits the plan of soothing the theatric anger of a bigger and more numerous neighbour... even if that neighbour is much less trustworthy. What's in a name? Depends on whether you look at just the name and the meaning you've been told to accept for it, or whether there's preparedness to look beyond just the name.
Austen Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 Great deal of simplification going on here lads!Refugees are refugees Illegal immigrants are illegal immigrants These two categories are not mutually exclusive. Any attempt to make them so is dishonest and unworthy - particularly of those refugees who are not illegal immigrants. "........not mutually exclusive" ???? Shirley, if he's an illegal immigrant then we have the right to place our #9's firmly on his backside ??? And if he's a refugee, we have an obligation to help him ???? Certainly, someone can enter Australia via the back-door (specifically, the 20,000 Km of unprotected shore-line ) without our express permission, which, OK, if you squint, might make them, at that instant, both an illegal immigrant and a refugee, but as soon as his story is checked, he becomes one or the other ????? Austen.
Aloysius Posted April 19, 2007 Posted April 19, 2007 "........not mutually exclusive" ????Shirley, if he's an illegal immigrant then we have the right to place our #9's firmly on his backside ??? And if he's a refugee, we have an obligation to help him ???? Certainly, someone can enter Australia via the back-door (specifically, the 20,000 Km of unprotected shore-line ) without our express permission, which, OK, if you squint, might make them, at that instant, both an illegal immigrant and a refugee, but as soon as his story is checked, he becomes one or the other ????? Austen. That's right - not mutually exclusive - you can be one, or the other, or both, at the same time. And when we first meet that person we don't know what they might be. If anyone was wanting to illegally enter Australia - it's a fair bet that being untruthful in their claims would not be a problem to them.
Recommended Posts