Australia, PNG to discuss future of controversial asylum seeker camp

[F4UCorsair]

On 4/8/2017 at 10:21 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

 

By stopping illegal immigration by boat it saved many lives.

Refugees can come by plane, so it's not part of a plan to stop all refugees.

 

It's actually a fraction of the cost to come by air (up to $20,000 for a place on a leaky boat, apparently) but even if they eat their passports enroute, there is a paper trail, unlike when they throw their passports into the sea, and that is one of the principal reasons boats have been stopped.   The illegal arrivals couldn't be traced, and many from Pakistan, for example, had said they were from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran.   A huge number of them were multi lingual, making it difficult for authorities to determine their actual origin without documentation.

 

They had passports when they left their home countries, and transited several countries before arriving at the jumping off point in Indonesia.

 

You're quite right tbl, many lives have been saved by stopping the boats, and only the conservatives were able to do it, but even the left fell in line, knowing it wa something they could never have achieved.   I doubt they would retain the policy if they ever won government though.

Edited April 9, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[simple1]

3 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

<snip>

only the conservatives were able to do it, but even the left fell in line, knowing it wa something they could never have achieved.   I doubt they would retain the policy if they ever won government though.

Myth that is constantly repeated by the 'right'.

 

Guess who really stopped the boats? (hint: not Abbott)

 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/09/25/guess-who-really-stopped-the-boats-hint-not-abbott/

[F4UCorsair]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Myth that is constantly repeated by the 'right'.

 

Guess who really stopped the boats? (hint: not Abbott)

 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/09/25/guess-who-really-stopped-the-boats-hint-not-abbott/

 

I won't get into a pi$$ing contest with you, and the pettiness that goes with that, but using Crikey (or Wikipedia for that matter) as an authority is plain foolish.

[simple1]

59 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

I won't get into a pi$$ing contest with you, and the pettiness that goes with that, but using Crikey (or Wikipedia for that matter) as an authority is plain foolish.

Great. Hopefully you won't continue with posting your misinformed opinions.

[F4UCorsair]

16 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Great. Hopefully you won't continue with posting your misinformed opinions.

Likewise!!

[F4UCorsair]

On 4/7/2017 at 8:11 PM, 4MyEgo said:

Didn't I hear that 1/3 of them are on welfare, oh that's right I am paying for it because if I want my pension when I reach that age, I have to return and stay for 2 years before I can take it with me anywhere I please, a numbers game I dare say, if he doesn't return, well his pension can pay for him, bla bla bla

I wish it was only a third.  85% of middle eastern arrival in Australia are still drawing welfare payments 5 years after arriving!!   Government stats, revealed by a government officer in a TV interview recently, very reluctantly!!  

 

Neil Mitchell, 3AW Melbourne, claimed an unemployment rate of 93% among 'refugees', and a cost of $100 MILLION a year on the left wing Q & A last year.   Figure are very difficult to validate because the government doesn't want the voting public to know what the cost is for fear of an uprising, similar to the cost of keeping a prisoner, no hard and fast numbers.

[giddyup]

3 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

I wish it was only a third.  85% of middle eastern arrival in Australia are still drawing welfare payments 5 years after arriving!!   Government stats, revealed by a government officer in a TV interview recently, very reluctantly!!  

 

Neil Mitchell, 3AW Melbourne, claimed an unemployment rate of 93% among 'refugees', and a cost of $100 MILLION a year on the left wing Q & A last year.   Figure are very difficult to validate because the government doesn't want the voting public to know what the cost is for fear of an uprising, similar to the cost of keeping a prisoner, no hard and fast numbers.

None of the refugee advocates want to know those kind of statistics, they'd rather keep regurgitating the same old mantra that refugees contribute to Australian culture in so many ways. In the past this was true, the Italians, Greeks and Vietnamese have all been hardworking assets, whereas the middle east and African are just a drain on the economy.

[F4UCorsair]

Just now, giddyup said:

None of the refugee advocates want to know those kind of statistics, they'd rather keep regurgitating the same old mantra that refugees contribute to Australian culture in so many ways. In the past this was true, the Italians, Greeks and Vietnamese have all been hardworking assets, whereas the middle east and African are just a drain on the economy.

Sure they've contributed, planned to blow up the MCG on Grand Final Day, other terror attacks, currently 33 muslims in the pen for terrorism related offences.

 

Southern Europeans and Vietnamese have been great migrants, low crime rates, hard working and contributing to the country, and middle eastern may yet get there, but they're not showing positive signs many years after they started arriving back in 1976 under Fraser.

 

You may want to google "Fraser was warned on Lebanese migrants" for a precis on why they shouldn't be here.

[giddyup]

6 minutes ago, F4UCorsair said:

Sure they've contributed, planned to blow up the MCG on Grand Final Day, other terror attacks, currently 33 muslims in the pen for terrorism related offences.

 

Southern Europeans and Vietnamese have been great migrants, low crime rates, hard working and contributing to the country, and middle eastern may yet get there, but they're not showing positive signs many years after they started arriving back in 1976 under Fraser.

 

You may want to google "Fraser was warned on Lebanese migrants" for a precis on why they shouldn't be here.

What I don't understand is why politicians can't heed the warnings of what's happening in countries like Germany, France and Sweden.

[F4UCorsair]

4 hours ago, giddyup said:

What I don't understand is why politicians can't heed the warnings of what's happening in countries like Germany, France and Sweden.

Because they're stupid, and in the grip of the political correctness BS.  They'd prefer to sell out our country and appear politically correct, stay in office, and trash the country.  They're idiots.

 

I like Lee Kwan Yew's line.....I'd  prefer to be correct than politically correct.  Great line from a great leader.

[simple1]

5 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

I wish it was only a third.  85% of middle eastern arrival in Australia are still drawing welfare payments 5 years after arriving!!   Government stats, revealed by a government officer in a TV interview recently, very reluctantly!!  

 

Neil Mitchell, 3AW Melbourne, claimed an unemployment rate of 93% among 'refugees', and a cost of $100 MILLION a year on the left wing Q & A last year.   Figure are very difficult to validate because the government doesn't want the voting public to know what the cost is for fear of an uprising, similar to the cost of keeping a prisoner, no hard and fast numbers.

Neil Mitchell? - LOL. The stats are readily available for fact check purposes from government for reporting purposes. e.g.

 

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-refugees-cost-australia-100m-a-year-in-welfare-with-an-unemployment-rate-of-97-54395

 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/a-world-of-long-term-welfare-for-refugees/news-story/7f65b56d6230b8f76010737b9a3a7464

 

Other studies are available that underline additional challenges for refugees such as active discrimination when seeking employment, which is no surprise given the type of aggressive generalised negative comments made by you and others in every topic regards asylum seekers / refugees in Australia.

 

 

[giddyup]

18 minutes ago, simple1 said:

Neil Mitchell? - LOL. The stats are readily available for fact check purposes from government for reporting purposes. e.g.

 

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-refugees-cost-australia-100m-a-year-in-welfare-with-an-unemployment-rate-of-97-54395

 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/a-world-of-long-term-welfare-for-refugees/news-story/7f65b56d6230b8f76010737b9a3a7464

 

Other studies are available that underline additional challenges for refugees such as active discrimination when seeking employment, which is no surprise given the type of aggressive generalised negative comments made by you and others in every topic regards asylum seekers / refugees in Australia.

 

 

Why look for work if welfare payments far exceed what a job would pay, plus all the additional benefits?

[F4UCorsair]

25 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Why look for work if welfare payments far exceed what a job would pay, plus all the additional benefits?

 

Exactly!!  Welfare handout, free public transport, free medical.

 

I've never received a cent from the taxpayer, paid a LOT of tax for a long time, and am self funded in retirement, whilst these blow ins have everything handed to them on a platter.   Why look for work, indeed.

 

But getting back to the subject, closure of the 'controversial asylum seeker camp', that none will be settled in Australia is not a bad thing.   The pool of those paying tax is decreasing, and the pool of those sucking on the welfare system is increasing due to home grown bludgers, so why would we need more, especially when unemployment is above 6%??

[F4UCorsair]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

Neil Mitchell? - LOL. The stats are readily available for fact check purposes from government for reporting purposes. e.g.

 

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-qanda-do-refugees-cost-australia-100m-a-year-in-welfare-with-an-unemployment-rate-of-97-54395

 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/a-world-of-long-term-welfare-for-refugees/news-story/7f65b56d6230b8f76010737b9a3a7464

 

Other studies are available that underline additional challenges for refugees such as active discrimination when seeking employment, which is no surprise given the type of aggressive generalised negative comments made by you and others in every topic regards asylum seekers / refugees in Australia.

 

 

Factcheck.....LOL!!!

Factcheck.org -- A Fraudulent "Fact Check" Site Funded By Biased Political Group The Annenberg Foundation was originally founded by Walter J. Annenberg, a conservative who supported Ronald Reagan. However, when Walter Annenberg died, his family took over the management of the foundation and it took a turn to the far left    Google it....I may be outside forum rules by posting the link.   This is heading off topic, so let's get back on the actual topic subject, and that is   "Australia, PNG to discuss future of controversial asylum seeker camp"   I'll do so by reiterating what I said above   .........................closure of the 'controversial asylum seeker camp', that none will be settled in Australia is not a bad thing.   The pool of those paying tax is decreasing, and the pool of those sucking on the welfare system is increasing due to home grown bludgers, so why would we need more (from anywhere), especially when unemployment is above 6%??

Edited April 11, 2017 by F4UCorsair

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/9/2017 at 5:37 PM, simple1 said:

Myth that is constantly repeated by the 'right'.

 

Guess who really stopped the boats? (hint: not Abbott)

 

https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/09/25/guess-who-really-stopped-the-boats-hint-not-abbott/

Actually, Howard first stopped the boats, but that policy was stopped by Rudd, which led to the huge numbers of boats and subsequent rise in deaths at sea.

Rudd may have reintroduced the policy, but that was obviously part of a desperate election campaign. I was around when it happened and it seemed rather cynical, given he had been responsible for the demise of a policy that was working. However, that's politics.

[F4UCorsair]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Actually, Howard first stopped the boats, but that policy was stopped by Rudd, which led to the huge numbers of boats and subsequent rise in deaths at sea.

Rudd may have reintroduced the policy, but that was obviously part of a desperate election campaign. I was around when it happened and it seemed rather cynical, given he had been responsible for the demise of a policy that was working. However, that's politics.

Right on the button tbl.   Rudd reintroduced it in a desperate, and futile, attempt to hold on to power, but only weeks before the election, so played NO part in actually implementing it, so can be disregarded.

[simple1]

11 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

Right on the button tbl.   Rudd reintroduced it in a desperate, and futile, attempt to hold on to power, but only weeks before the election, so played NO part in actually implementing it, so can be disregarded.

keep on posting misinformation.  Read the link I provided which you refused to do so & discover the historical reality e.g.

 

It was, in fact, Labor that stopped the boats. Several measures put in place by the Labor government before the election caused the dramatic fall in the number arrivals, allowing for a short time lag.

The first was “enhanced screening” of Sri Lankans and quick return of non-refugees to Sri Lanka. The second was a decision by Indonesia, at Australia’s urging, that Iranians could not enter Indonesia without visas.

The third and most important was the announcement by Kevin Rudd on July 2013 that, in future, any persons coming by boat who were found to be refugees would not be settled in Australia. We may argue about the wisdom of that policy, but it effectively crippled the people-smugglers.

Fortuitously for the Abbott government, when it was sworn in on September 18, 2013, the flow of maritime arrivals was well on its way to being finished as a result of measures already taken.

Edited April 13, 2017 by simple1

[kiwiaussie]

On 13/04/2017 at 4:32 AM, F4UCorsair said:

Right on the button tbl.   Rudd reintroduced it in a desperate, and futile, attempt to hold on to power, but only weeks before the election, so played NO part in actually implementing it, so can be disregarded.

I see now they are trying for New Zealand!