Australia plans to ban asylum seekers from ever visiting

[ballpoint]

2 hours ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

All you have to do is vote in a government that will cease being a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. It's not that hard. Devote your energies towards a political party that has that as its main aim. I thought that's what Australia's One Nation Party was for. After all, my country, the USA, left another UN body, the International Court of Justice, in 1986 because it kept making decisions with which the USA did not agree. There's a precedent there. Just get off your backsides and stop whining - or making up fantasy scenarios like "refugee return" which have never been proven to work in almost all cases.

Firstly, please show me where I make up a "fantasy scenario" of any sort?  I'll make it easy for you, that was my first post in this thread, so, if it is there, it must be somewhere in that single line I wrote, namely: "Sadly, in a number of cases, we would need to keep doing so until they've dragged our countries down to the level of theirs".

Secondly, it is an incontrovertible fact that, though the majority want to get on with their lives and forget the horrors of where they came from, the aim of a number of asylum seekers is to destabilise, or at the very least, radically change, the countries they have "fled" to.  This may range from the extreme of overt terror attacks, down to the pushing for their old customs and laws to be implemented in the country they are now in.   Making that point is not "whining", though perhaps that noise you hear is the wind blowing through the sand you have your head firmly buried in, and, if you go back to that line I wrote, there is nothing in there condemning refugees, praising any government's stand on refugees, advocating that refugees should be sent home, or otherwise commentating on the morality of allowing or denying their access to our countries.  Indeed, prefacing it as I did with "sadly" would seem to indicate that I find it a pity that the security and quality of life of the majority are compromised by the actions of some. Perhaps you take offence to the implication that their countries are at a lower level to ours?  If so, to clarify the point, I am referring to the current state of affairs in "our" countries as opposed to theirs.  When we see tens of thousands fleeing the West and lining up to enter Afghanistan and Syria, I'll change my post to "Happily, in a number of cases, we would need to keep doing so until they've dragged our countries up to the level of theirs", but until that day arrives I think I'll stick with what I originally wrote.

[SaintLouisBlues]

3 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

Firstly, please show me where I make up a "fantasy scenario" of any sort?  I'll make it easy for you, that was my first post in this thread, so, if it is there, it must be somewhere in that single line I wrote ...

One of the sad things you learn in life, even on TV, is that it's not All About You. The post to which I was originally responding and to which I keep referring was much earlier than yours, and was made by 4MyEgo. I responded yesterday morning, if you want to track it down - it's on p.2

[ElPatron]

Some aboriginals told me they wanted to have this kind of law before the white migrants came in their country.