German migrant rescue ship captain moved to secret location after threats

[simple1]

16 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

is Australia wrong for preventing Malaysians from claiming asylum as part of a known scam? 

 

And that is the same scam being perpetrated in almost every developed country, people falsely claiming refugee status to gain entry, knowing that removing them is difficult if not impossible.

paragraph 1: of course not.

 

para 2: I know. As said must abide by Rule of Law. Oz is returning people to Malaysia so must have Govt to Govt agreement. EU countries are progressing down the same path with African and other countries, but taking a while to complete the processes. Believe some corruption (bribery involved by way of foreign aid). There are other road blocks i.e. achieving the status of a 'Safe Country'.

[Ozman52]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

paragraph 1: of course not.

 

para 2: I know. As said must abide by Rule of Law. Oz is returning people to Malaysia so must have Govt to Govt agreement. EU countries are progressing down the same path with African and other countries, but taking a while to complete the processes. Believe some corruption (bribery involved by way of foreign aid). There are other road blocks i.e. achieving the status of a 'Safe Country'.

There is no "must have", they are simply refusing them entry and not allowing them to lodge asylum claims. Oz officials quoted as saying fly-ins are easy, they have to show a passport to get on the plane, we know where they are coming from, and that is where they are going.

And if Australia is not wrong, why shouldn't the rest of the world take the same attitude? Refusal of entry is far cheaper and less time-consuming than the deportation process you are trying to throw in as a straw argument. 

[simple1]

14 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

There is no "must have", they are simply refusing them entry and not allowing them to lodge asylum claims. Oz officials quoted as saying fly-ins are easy, they have to show a passport to get on the plane, we know where they are coming from, and that is where they are going.

And if Australia is not wrong, why shouldn't the rest of the world take the same attitude? Refusal of entry is far cheaper and less time-consuming than the deportation process you are trying to throw in as a straw argument. 

The Australian article today covered this matter in some detail. My understanding is that in effect border control are basing their decisions on known behaviour, repeated same content and so on - profiling. However, you raise a point, would the process stand up in a Court. I would assume not, as so far as I'm aware specific supporting domestic legislation has yet to be enacted.

Edited July 4, 2019 by simple1

[Ozman52]

18 minutes ago, simple1 said:

The Australian article today covered this matter in some detail. My understanding is that in effect border control are basing their decisions on known behaviour, repeated same content and so on - profiling. However, you raise a point, would the process stand up in a Court. I would assume not, as so far as I'm aware specific supporting domestic legislation has yet to be enacted.

Would you like me to give you a profile of those on that boat? it's not rocket science.

 

I look forward to a successful court challenge followed by legislation to abandon this whole "everybody is a refugee until proven otherwise" scam.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Ozman52

[simple1]

4 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

Would you like me to give you a profile of those on that boat? it's not rocket science.

Trust the following makes you happy...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/14/italy-rejects-record-number-of-asylum-applications

 

[Ozman52]

16 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Trust the following makes you happy...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/14/italy-rejects-record-number-of-asylum-applications

 

Why would I be happy that Italy is stuck with over 600,000 illegal immigrants that they will take years to deport? OTOH at least they are doing something to remedy the situation.

Did you notice, when Italy said NO the immigrants stopped coming?

[khunken]

53 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

Why would I be happy that Italy is stuck with over 600,000 illegal immigrants that they will take years to deport? OTOH at least they are doing something to remedy the situation.

Did you notice, when Italy said NO the immigrants stopped coming?

Did you notice that they haven't stopped coming or we wouldn't have your apparently racist posts in this thread.

The US, UK & France, using NATO, destroyed all semblance of government in Libya, where most of those that arrived in Italy came from. No, they were certainly not all Libyans as the rule of law didn't exist there & other Africans jumped on the bandwaggon.

Due to the numbers (over 500,000) since Libyas destruction, it was (A) impossible to assess which were refugees and which were migrants on the island where they arrived, & (B) sending them back to Libya was impossible as there was no government authority to receive them.

That condition still exists in Libya but the EU has continued to try to reach an agreement with the Libyan groups. There are two entities that control most of Mediterranean Libya - the UN-recognised 'government' in Tripoli and not in control of most of the rest of Libya and a warlord (who has been attacking the Tripoli group) that controls a substantial portion of the east of the country (Benghazi & nearby areas).

 

One further point in reply to Dick Dasterdly.

Yes, the process to determine whether an arrival is a refugee or a migrant takes time, especially when there are large numbers of those arriving. Assessing the status should be a careful & verified process and that does take time. Would you prefer it to be quick & dirty?

[jany123]

6 hours ago, Ozman52 said:

BTW how do you feel about Malaysians being denied the right to claim asylum on arrival in Australia? Do you support the action or prefer scam artists to be allowed to take advantage of our laws?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-03/malaysia-visa-protection-influx-at-australian-airports/10959988

seems Australia is ticking all the boxes, as is required... what a stirring example... and completely off topic, and,as is mentioned in the article... no one is in fear of drowning to death.

[BobBKK]

So they found a weak judge. She's an arrogant, rich *whatever* and she broke the law. Lock her up.

[Ozman52]

34 minutes ago, khunken said:

Did you notice that they haven't stopped coming or we wouldn't have your apparently racist posts in this thread.

The US, UK & France, using NATO, destroyed all semblance of government in Libya, where most of those that arrived in Italy came from. No, they were certainly not all Libyans as the rule of law didn't exist there & other Africans jumped on the bandwaggon.

Due to the numbers (over 500,000) since Libyas destruction, it was (A) impossible to assess which were refugees and which were migrants on the island where they arrived, & (B) sending them back to Libya was impossible as there was no government authority to receive them.

That condition still exists in Libya but the EU has continued to try to reach an agreement with the Libyan groups. There are two entities that control most of Mediterranean Libya - the UN-recognised 'government' in Tripoli and not in control of most of the rest of Libya and a warlord (who has been attacking the Tripoli group) that controls a substantial portion of the east of the country (Benghazi & nearby areas).

 

One further point in reply to Dick Dasterdly.

Yes, the process to determine whether an arrival is a refugee or a migrant takes time, especially when there are large numbers of those arriving. Assessing the status should be a careful & verified process and that does take time. Would you prefer it to be quick & dirty?

While calling me an "apparent rascist" why don't you the usual route and add fascist and Nazi. I don't give hoot what race they are or where they are from, I am just pointing out the stupidity of assuming everybody is a refugee until proved otherwise, a position that is being used for mass illegal immigration. This is costing the host countries huge amounts of money as well as the social costs of supporting those with far lower civility standards.

Apparently YOU think this is a good idea, I'd prefer deciding status was done externally as well as being a slow careful process.

[Ozman52]

40 minutes ago, jany123 said:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-03/malaysia-visa-protection-influx-at-australian-airports/10959988

seems Australia is ticking all the boxes, as is required... what a stirring example... and completely off topic, and,as is mentioned in the article... no one is in fear of drowning to death.

It was meant as an example of how to stop immigration scams. NO, they are not ticking all the boxes, they are returning people without giving them opportunity to apply for asylum, as I highlighted in my post. The alternative is to allow them to scam us, and incur costs ~$50,000,000. 

 

BTW your stream of consciousness posting is difficult to follow. Try writing sentences and take a little time to think about what you are trying to say.

Edited July 4, 2019 by Ozman52

[jany123]

4 hours ago, Ozman52 said:

 

That doesn't alter the perception that most of those "seeking asylum" are actually seeking to improve their lifestyle.

Perception?.... what is this perception, of which you speak?

 

if I’m going out on a limb, I think it a rather strong limb... but I think it’s accurate to say that all asylum seekers are most definitely seeking to improve their lifestyle

[Ozman52]

2 minutes ago, jany123 said:

Perception?.... what is this perception, of which you speak?

 

if I’m going out on a limb, I think it a rather strong limb... but I think it’s accurate to say that all asylum seekers are most definitely seeking to improve their lifestyle

Doh! I thought it would be fairly clear that I meant improving their lifestyle was the main objective rather than seeking safety. Apparently I over-estimated your level of perception.

[khunken]

6 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

While calling me an "apparent rascist" why don't you the usual route and add fascist and Nazi. I don't give hoot what race they are or where they are from, I am just pointing out the stupidity of assuming everybody is a refugee until proved otherwise, a position that is being used for mass illegal immigration. This is costing the host countries huge amounts of money as well as the social costs of supporting those with far lower civility standards.

Apparently YOU think this is a good idea, I'd prefer deciding status was done externally as well as being a slow careful process.

'far lower civility standards' - so you do 'give a hoot' and just shows your arrogantly superior attitude to those whose status has not been determined.

I think that the UNHCR is the correct agency to handle refugees/migrants and I haven't seen any better solution & you haven't suggested one.

Oh, by 'externally' do you mean their racial makeup?

[Ozman52]

5 minutes ago, khunken said:

'far lower civility standards' - so you do 'give a hoot' and just shows your arrogantly superior attitude to those whose status has not been determined.

I think that the UNHCR is the correct agency to handle refugees/migrants and I haven't seen any better solution & you haven't suggested one.

Oh, by 'externally' do you mean their racial makeup?

Keep the insults coming if that's all you have. Yes, I regard most of those showing up on Italy's coast as low-life criminals trying to thwart immigration laws, and the Italians agree. If that attitude is "arrogantly superior", I consider far preferable to naively allowing scammers to rort your generosity which they see as weakness. The economic migrants are well aware that fools and their money are easily parted. 

I have suggested a better solution, stop regarding everybody/anybody that shows up at the border as a refugee. Externally means outside the host country, the ONLY place that refugee status should be considered.

[simple1]

23 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

While calling me an "apparent rascist" why don't you the usual route and add fascist and Nazi.

Your self proclaimed disregard for the Rule of Law, highly bigoted posts and associated imagery leaves little room to consider anything other than what you deny.

 

 

[jany123]

 

54 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

It was meant as an example of how to stop immigration scams. NO, they are not ticking all the boxes, they are returning people without giving them opportunity to apply for asylum, as I highlighted in my post. The alternative is to allow them to scam us, and incur costs ~$50,000,000. 

 

BTW your stream of consciousness posting is difficult to follow. Try writing sentences and take a little time to think about what you are trying to say.

To avoid confusion, might I suggest that you provide links to back up your claims.

 

the link I provided cited Australian immigrations cancelling visas while passengers where still airside, and these passengers were put back on a plane and returned home, easy peasy

 

an immigration officer has the authority to cancel a visa and send someone away.... deal done... although I note that there are concerns about transparency. That’s understandable, and I’m sure it’s actionable by Australian authorities, which provides Australians with robust protection from most of the negativities of migration, through laws and processes.

 

you picked this topic (comparison with Australia) to support your own callous opinion on how refugees at sea, in dander of death, escaping from a collapsing country, which has no real government or organization to supply migrants with documentation, to deflect... and perhaps mitigate what all see as your callousness.

 

Malaysians refused entry have spoken to Australian immigrations authorities on Australian soil, or in a separate safe location outside Australia. They are not recently rescued from death. They are documented and traceable. So.. Even if it’s an example in your mind, it’s a really bad example... amongst the worst that you could come up with, lacking any reasonable comparative indicators.

 

and oh.... oh oh oh... lmao... you grammar policed me... ????????????

Edited July 4, 2019 by jany123

[Ozman52]

3 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Your self proclaimed disregard for the Rule of Law, highly bigoted posts and associated imagery leaves little room to consider anything other than what you deny.

 

 

And yet, you agreed that ignoring the RoL to stop Malaysian scammers is the right thing to do. What I am advocating is CHANGING the laws to stop those who would use them to take advantage. I know that would be uncomfortable for you and other bleeding hearts who seem to believe in open borders, but it is inevitable that it will happen as the influx continues.

As for " associated imagery", the only image I have posted was supplied by the ABC and is an actual image of those on Sea Watch 3. If I move my cursor over it on my screen, that information appears. How rascist and bigoted is it to show those being discussed?

[khunken]

7 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

Keep the insults coming if that's all you have. Yes, I regard most of those showing up on Italy's coast as low-life criminals trying to thwart immigration laws, and the Italians agree. If that attitude is "arrogantly superior", I consider far preferable to naively allowing scammers to rort your generosity which they see as weakness. The economic migrants are well aware that fools and their money are easily parted. 

I have suggested a better solution, stop regarding everybody/anybody that shows up at the border as a refugee. Externally means outside the host country, the ONLY place that refugee status should be considered.

Thanks for the 'externally' clarification. So when a refugee/migrant arrives in a small boat (as many did in the past) their status should be considered outside the host country - where, in the middle of the Mediterranean?

BTW the Italians don't agree. Only the racist section of the government coalition & their supporters agree with you. Others don't.

When you post your usual derogatory comments about refugees & migrants who can't respond, you will fully deserve derogatory comments in return from me. This is one of your exceptional insult-free posts, so no come-back.

[Ozman52]

8 minutes ago, jany123 said:

 

To avoid confusion, might I suggest that you provide links to back up your claims.

 

the link I provided cited Australian immigrations cancelling visas while passengers where still airside, and these passengers were put back on a plane and returned home, easy peasy

 

an immigration officer has the authority to cancel a visa and send someone away.... deal done... although I note that there are concerns about transparency. That’s understandable, and I’m sure it’s actionable by Australian authorities, which provides Australians with robust protection from most of the negativities of migration, through laws and processes.

 

you picked this topic (comparison with Australia) to support your own callous opinion on how refugees at sea, in dander of death, escaping from a collapsing country, which has no real government or organization to supply migrants with documentation, to deflect... and perhaps mitigate what all see as your callousness.

 

Malaysians refused entry have spoken to Australian immigrations authorities on Australian soil or in a separate safe location outside Australia. They are not recently rescued from death. They and are documented and traceable. So.. Even if it’s an example in your mind, it’s a really bad example... amongst the worst that you could come up with, lacking any reasonable comparative indicators.

 

and oh.... oh oh oh... lmao... you grammar policed me... ????????????

I posted the same link yesterday, but the post has been deleted. It appears you completely missed the main point, that they are being removed without allowing them to lodge asylum claims allowing them to stay - contrary to refugee laws, but effective. My suggestion is that Italy may be moving the same way. 

Despite you silly hyperbole and the captain's claim, those on the Sea Watch 3 were not in danger of death, though she used the routine threat of suicide to justify her entry.

 

 

[khunken]

6 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

I posted the same link yesterday, but the post has been deleted. It appears you completely missed the main point, that they are being removed without allowing them to lodge asylum claims allowing them to stay - contrary to refugee laws, but effective. My suggestion is that Italy may be moving the same way. 

Despite you silly hyperbole and the captain's claim, those on the Sea Watch 3 were not in danger of death, though she used the routine threat of suicide to justify her entry.

 

 

'those on the Sea Watch 3 were not in danger of death'

But they were before Sea Watch picked them up. Also, I applaud her action which you criticise without knowing whether her claim is true or not.

[Ozman52]

10 minutes ago, khunken said:

Thanks for the 'externally' clarification. So when a refugee/migrant arrives in a small boat (as many did in the past) their status should be considered outside the host country - where, in the middle of the Mediterranean?

BTW the Italians don't agree. Only the racist section of the government coalition & their supporters agree with you. Others don't.

When you post your usual derogatory comments about refugees & migrants who can't respond, you will fully deserve derogatory comments in return from me. This is one of your exceptional insult-free posts, so no come-back.

Ah, you feel free to insult me because I allegedly insult those who can't respond. I post in respect of the citizens and taxpayers of countries being flooded by illegal immigration.

 

Boats should be destroyed and those on board returned to the departure point, no exceptions, and by force if necessary. The "racist section of the government coalition" are getting laws passed - if enough Italians disagree they can be voted out, but as this was their party platform, that seems unlikely. You know, democracy and all that. 

 

BTW it is far cheaper to conduct external status checks than allowing criminals in to your country where they become difficult to remove. Simple1's link to the Guardian states deportation estimates of 100 years. In other words, the criminal  illegal immigrants win, get to stay and the country bears the costs. 

[CNXexpat]

I wonder how many people call it illegal what she has done but the Italian court said it was not illegal. So many here have a Youtube master of law it seems.

[jany123]

21 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

I posted the same link yesterday, but the post has been deleted. It appears you completely missed the main point, that they are being removed without allowing them to lodge asylum claims allowing them to stay - contrary to refugee laws, but effective. My suggestion is that Italy may be moving the same way. 

Despite you silly hyperbole and the captain's claim, those on the Sea Watch 3 were not in danger of death, though she used the routine threat of suicide to justify her entry.

 

 

So... you had a link to support your claim... but it’s been deleted.

 

ergo... you have no link to support your claim, but you continue referencing information that assumedly was in the link which conveniently does not exist, so is irrefutable.

 

However, i would still like you to demonstrate how Australia is failing in it’s obligations under international law, as you maintain.

 

as to my hyperbole regards the captain.... the law agrees with my overall position, according to the OP. So I’m sorry if the law “coming out” in support of the ships master, as I and other posters herein also have, hurts your narrative so much

 

elsewhere is saw you claiming... 

33 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

What I am advocating is CHANGING the laws to stop those who would use them to take advantage. I know that would be uncomfortable for you and other bleeding hearts who seem to believe in open borders,

Well... I’m afraid I see no real advocacy towards changing law.

 

IMO, you must first understand and accept the current law (or it’s purpose), then work proactively from within to replace the partially functioning law, with a better law. Your have instead advocated ignoring the rule of law altogether, and have repetitively and erroneously discussed options that are deliberately excluded from the current law.

 

and.... I very much doubt that there is one single poster, bleeding heart or no, who advocates “open borders”. Happy to be corrected.... actually, with all the BS about “liberals” supporting “open borders”... I’d like to know if anyone here does support “open borders” ( to me, open borders means unregulated borders per definition)

 

As to which way Italy is moving regards its laws... a recent far right electoral win.... recent far right law changes (failing in test)... Ignoring or attempting to circumventing current international laws... disregarding existing treaties... which way are they moving.? Really? And you were just now denigrating my powers of perception.

[khunken]

11 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

Ah, you feel free to insult me because I allegedly insult those who can't respond. I post in respect of the citizens and taxpayers of countries being flooded by illegal immigration.

 

Boats should be destroyed and those on board returned to the departure point, no exceptions, and by force if necessary. The "racist section of the government coalition" are getting laws passed - if enough Italians disagree they can be voted out, but as this was their party platform, that seems unlikely. You know, democracy and all that. 

 

BTW it is far cheaper to conduct external status checks than allowing criminals in to your country where they become difficult to remove. Simple1's link to the Guardian states deportation estimates of 100 years. In other words, the criminal  illegal immigrants win, get to stay and the country bears the costs. 

What 'departure point'? They have not come via a defined exit point as there are none. So, just dump them on a beach somewhere (the departure point may well be unknown) & let them starve or be killed by the nearest militia. Yes, that'll work, if you regard these people as lesser animals which is your vile attitude.

I've had enough trying & failing to get through racist skulls to detect a smidgen of humanity.

[Ozman52]

1 hour ago, jany123 said:

So... you had a link to support your claim... but it’s been deleted.

 

ergo... you have no link to support your claim, but you continue referencing information that assumedly was in the link which conveniently does not exist, so is irrefutable.

 

However, i would still like you to demonstrate how Australia is failing in it’s obligations under international law, as you maintain.

 

as to my hyperbole regards the captain.... the law agrees with my overall position, according to the OP. So I’m sorry if the law “coming out” in support of the ships master, as I and other posters herein also have, hurts your narrative so much

 

elsewhere is saw you claiming... 

Well... I’m afraid I see no real advocacy towards changing law.

 

IMO, you must first understand and accept the current law (or it’s purpose), then work proactively from within to replace the partially functioning law, with a better law. Your have instead advocated ignoring the rule of law altogether, and have repetitively and erroneously discussed options that are deliberately excluded from the current law.

 

and.... I very much doubt that there is one single poster, bleeding heart or no, who advocates “open borders”. Happy to be corrected.... actually, with all the BS about “liberals” supporting “open borders”... I’d like to know if anyone here does support “open borders” ( to me, open borders means unregulated borders per definition)

 

As to which way Italy is moving regards its laws... a recent far right electoral win.... recent far right law changes (failing in test)... Ignoring or attempting to circumventing current international laws... disregarding existing treaties... which way are they moving.? Really? And you were just now denigrating my powers of perception.

Gee, why would I doubt your perception, or reading skills, or logic ability? Or all of them?

 

Again, I posted the SAME link yesterday, which you deduce no longer exists, though you just posted it. It contains a quote from the Refugee Council that Malaysians are not being given the opportunity to lodge (obviously false) asylum claims. Did you actually read it? Just in case:

The trend is "concerning" due a lack of transparency, according to Asher Hirsch, a senior policy officer at the Refugee Council.

"While legislation and the department's policy says that people who claim asylum at the airport must be allowed to lodge a protection application, we have heard worrying stories from lawyers and refugees themselves of people being returned at the border without the chance to apply for asylum," he said.

"While not every person who seeks asylum at an Australian airport will be a refugee, without a proper assessment of their claims there is a very real risk that we are sending people back to harm."

 

As for your opinion on my advocacy and how laws should be changed, it sounds like illogical garbage, IMO.

 

Allowing anybody who claim refugee status entry, knowing it will take years to process what is in many cases a clearly false claim, and even after proven false, it will be difficult to remove them, sounds like an open border policy to me. If you don't support that policy, please let us know.

[Ozman52]

1 hour ago, khunken said:

What 'departure point'? They have not come via a defined exit point as there are none. So, just dump them on a beach somewhere (the departure point may well be unknown) & let them starve or be killed by the nearest militia. Yes, that'll work, if you regard these people as lesser animals which is your vile attitude.

I've had enough trying & failing to get through racist skulls to detect a smidgen of humanity.

Satellite imagery would make it very easy to backtrack to a departure point. It was good enough to depart from, then it is good enough to go back to. Moreover, once it is apparent that the attempt is futile, the economic immigrants will then cease that approach, if only to try something else. Apparently the latest is flying to Mexico and trying the USA.

 

Why is it you are so willing to take responsibility for the lives of those who seem to care little for their own, and then claim rascism and worse on others who refute your view?

[jany123]

53 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

Gee, why would I doubt your perception, or reading skills, or logic ability? Or all of them?

 

Again, I posted the SAME link yesterday, which you deduce no longer exists, though you just posted it. It contains a quote from the Refugee Council that Malaysians are not being given the opportunity to lodge (obviously false) asylum claims. Did you actually read it? Just in case:

The trend is "concerning" due a lack of transparency, according to Asher Hirsch, a senior policy officer at the Refugee Council.

"While legislation and the department's policy says that people who claim asylum at the airport must be allowed to lodge a protection application, we have heard worrying stories from lawyers and refugees themselves of people being returned at the border without the chance to apply for asylum," he said.

"While not every person who seeks asylum at an Australian airport will be a refugee, without a proper assessment of their claims there is a very real risk that we are sending people back to harm."

 

As for your opinion on my advocacy and how laws should be changed, it sounds like illogical garbage, IMO.

 

Allowing anybody who claim refugee status entry, knowing it will take years to process what is in many cases a clearly false claim, and even after proven false, it will be difficult to remove them, sounds like an open border policy to me. If you don't support that policy, please let us know.

 

3 hours ago, Ozman52 said:

BTW your stream of consciousness posting is difficult to follow. Try writing sentences and take a little time to think about what you are trying to say.

Oh... you mean that you posted the same link that I posted, but that you posted it on another thread.... got it. Respectfully... read your second post as quoted herein.

 

meanwhile... we are relying on the same post and arguing different points of view. The article that we are relying on, states that the Malaysians are not getting past immigrations at Australian airports. It does not state that they are being denied due process as required.

 

However... it does give an opinion offered by a refugees rights worker, that the process lacks transparency and is therefore open to abuse... and I agree, but be that as it may, your claim lacks verification.

 

on a personal note... people in glass houses should respect stones... Asking to know if I’ve read something which you don’t seem to understand.... laughable.

[khunken]

23 minutes ago, Ozman52 said:

Satellite imagery would make it very easy to backtrack to a departure point. It was good enough to depart from, then it is good enough to go back to. Moreover, once it is apparent that the attempt is futile, the economic immigrants will then cease that approach, if only to try something else. Apparently the latest is flying to Mexico and trying the USA.

 

Why is it you are so willing to take responsibility for the lives of those who seem to care little for their own, and then claim rascism and worse on others who refute your view?

I see you have taken the Trump racist propaganda into your warped collection of lies. Both the US and Australia are not a part of this topic.

Very doubtful that satellite imagery would pick up a small boat and no, a beach is not good enough to dump people on. I rather suspect that your preference is for them to die in their efforts to flee from whatever motivated them to take their chances.

I am not taking responsibility for anyone - just defending their right to better themselves.

As for racism: 'One look at the filth she "rescued" everyone gorilla appearance' from one of your previous posts is a classic example. It is you, not those individuals, who are filth with your disgusting attitude.

 

[Jonmarleesco]

On 7/3/2019 at 6:20 PM, snoop1130 said:

Rackete appeared before a court in Agrigento on Monday and apologized for hitting the patrol boat, saying it had been an accident and that her sole concern was the well-being of the migrants who had been at sea for more than two weeks.

They wouldn't have been at sea at all if they had stuck with their own country(ies) instead of deciding to test the colour of the grass on the other side.