Thai Hostages Still Missing a Year After Hamas Attack

[Scott]

16 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Re I'm not sure what Americans are getting in return for me means that by some strange effect people ( on the street, ie voters ) would actually have an understanding of how politicians actually think and the reasons behind their public statements.

The whole situation with so called refugees is going to blow up in all our faces because, in my mind, every politician in every country only spouts forth with what they think will get them more votes so they can enrich themselves.

So called refugees, my opinion, are a small percentage of the hordes who because of the crap state of their own countries  believe that moving country will mean they can live a free and easy life and all will be handed to them on a plate.

Some are geniune refugees but only a small minority, the rest want to be on the gravy train without buying a ticket.

People will say I am too hard on it but if they find a boat with 100 of them half way over the Med, rescue them then go back to the north african coast and put them back on the beach.

Hard words but if it's not done then in the very near future, at my age it won't be a problem for me, but it will be for the next generation.

If you allow them in then offer them the same benefits that they would get in Thailand, in my mind that is one of the many benefits that you get in Thailand. It makes you responsible for yourself.

End of rant.

Your rant is a little off-topic, short on facts and long on opinion. 

 

The people that will be accepted by both Australia and the US have been deemed as genuine, political refugees.   The US President sets a number for the refugees it will take.   It has been set at 50,000, down from 100,000.   Whether they come from the Australian pool of refugees or some other pool of refugees, they will most likely come.  

 

The people in the Mediterranean may seek asylum, but they aren't refugees until they are screened.  

[Roadman]

6 hours ago, Prbkk said:

The deal makes sense for both countries; for Australia ,it is consistent with the bi-partisan support for not rewarding those who queue jump and arrive illegally; for the US, it is similar.

Australia has a large refugee program and it has been successful: it took the largest % of Vietnamese refugees per capita and in 45 years they have integrated very well ( some early issues to do with drugs were to be expected given the massive disruption/trauma faced by those who traveled by boat; an ongoing issue with highrates of gambling addiction). A few pet dogs got eaten. But really a great success.

It does tick the paper work of the criteria for the Aussies to show that the illegals do not get into Aussie. But I fail to see how it is a deterrent because now the illegals can jump in their boats heading for Aussie thinking ''choice bro USA here we come". 

[simple1]

9 hours ago, Kevbo said:

A few being the operative word, other faiths might possibly struggle to integrate initially but Muslims, generally refuse to integrate or assimilate, another true blanket statement.....

I guess you're an Australian, but not well informed. As an example one of the oldest and the second largest Muslim heritage groups in Australia are Turks, I have yet to hear of any issues concerning integration of this community. Yes there are some Muslims who would not be 'well integrated', but 'generally' is misinformation.

[simple1]

4 hours ago, Roadman said:

It does tick the paper work of the criteria for the Aussies to show that the illegals do not get into Aussie. But I fail to see how it is a deterrent because now the illegals can jump in their boats heading for Aussie thinking ''choice bro USA here we come". 

The swap arrangement is a once off deal. Since the Rudd enacted Pacific Solution few boats have attempted to land on Oz territory and no asylum seekers have been relocated to Australia. On the other side of the coin roughly 6,000 people arrive by air p.a. & then claim asylum and have done so for years; it's interesting there is hardly any reporting on this matter.

 

By the way a quote from an Australian Parliament document dated 03/2015.

 

• Although those who come to Australia by boat seeking Australia’s protection are classified by Australian law to be ‘unlawful non-citizens’, they have a right to seek asylum under international law and not be penalised for their mode of entry.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts

Edited July 26, 2017 by simple1

[Saan]

10 hours ago, Scott said:

 

Since Australia is allowing for the 'extreme vetting' by the US, it sounds like a reasonable deal.   I am not sure what the US is getting in return, but it may help with preventing more Central Americans from heading North.  

The trade off is that Australia will continue to support the US right or wrong in all their little  police actions they like to call wars across the world. Our Government is willing to spill our troops blood to keep the Muslims out.

[simple1]

2 hours ago, Saan said:

The trade off is that Australia will continue to support the US right or wrong in all their little  police actions they like to call wars across the world. Our Government is willing to spill our troops blood to keep the Muslims out.

Guess you're unfamiliar with the Oz government migrant, humanitarian and refugee visa intake. 

 

BTW the latest Australian Miss World is a former Bosnian Muslim refugee who works in psychology and as a criminal profiler - yet another example of Muslim unwillingness to integrate - LOL.

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by simple1

[boomerangutang]

Follow the money:    According to my 'back of the envelope' jotting down numbers, It looks like approx us$4 billion for approx 3,000 refugees wanting to settle in Australia.   That comes to us$1.3 million per person.  

 

That's why there's scant little mention of costs in that article:  The numbers are astronomical. 

 

23 hours ago, Jamin123 said:

You have a valid point. Larger Muslim concentration are more likely to bread radical terrorist. 

Instead of denying them, they could have given them the opportunity to convert. Some may have seized the chance than remain in limbo. Didn't many Jews converted to avoid deportation in some countries. Perhaps it's not unusual to switch religion to escape war, persecution and death.

If that happened, then people ww would be screaming about how Aussie gov't forced Muslims to denounce their religion.  Muslims in particular would be livid, and probably step-up bomb attacks.