Your xenophobia is showing again.
Never said anything like that, as you know most illegal immigration is white and comes through Sydney airport.yes dilbert, we know australia is better off being ethnically clean. we should bring back the 10 pound poms eh.
Strange then that for the rich, educated European professional class Aus is the #1 or #2 migration destination.Uzique wrote:
europe really does regard australia as a backwards, racist shithole
Must be a lot of racists in Europe I guess.
Correct, and gives the lie to the idea they're 'seeking asylum'. They're seeking a better lifestyle but don't meet the legitimate entry requirements for Aus and so fradulently claim asylum.people who had fled literally from syria or the iraq-afghan conflicts, and had made it to australia. motherfuck that's a long way to go to seek asylum somewhere
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-07-20 21:42:22)
Fuck Israel
So many of them are economic migrants when over 90% of them have found to be genuine asylum seekers right?Dilbert_X wrote:
Most people know that most of them aren't 'asyslum seekers', they're economic migrants.
No country is obliged to take economic migrants.
That so many are muslim is interesting, they skip through multiple muslim countries on their way and risk their lives and their families to live amongst infidels.
It's funny how the media plays this out "er mah gerd theyre from rich backgrounds skipping the cue paying up to 100k aussie to be smuggled! They also want to take advantage of our welfare system costing tax payers billions!"
Funny how our immigration and customs fucked things up so bad we have to spend 23m dollars in compensation in 2011
http://www.smh.com.au/national/compensa … 1n7i0.html
THE federal government has been forced to pay $18 million in compensation to asylum seekers for unlawful detention, and $5 million to former detainees for negligence.
The $23 million in compensation is more than twice the level previously admitted by the federal government.
Depends, if they can 'prove' they're fleeing persecution by photo-copying someone elses story, crossing out the other name and pencilling in their own then yeah its pretty easy to be a 'genuine asylum seeker'.Cybargs wrote:
So many of them are economic migrants when over 90% of them have found to be genuine asylum seekers right?
And if the people processing the applications have to write a 20 page legally water-tight document for every rejection, and only have to rubber stamp those they pass its fairly obvious which way its going to swing isn't it?
Fuck Israel
you obviously have no understanding how immigration works or the asylum paper. 20 page water tight document for a rejection? motherfucker its like 3 paragraphs at best.Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends, if they can 'prove' they're fleeing persecution by photo-copying someone elses story, crossing out the other name and pencilling in their own then yeah its pretty easy to be a 'genuine asylum seeker'.Cybargs wrote:
So many of them are economic migrants when over 90% of them have found to be genuine asylum seekers right?
And if the people processing the applications have to write a 20 page legally water-tight document for every rejection, and only have to rubber stamp those they pass its fairly obvious which way its going to swing isn't it?
Dilbert_X wrote:
Depends, if they can 'prove' they're fleeing persecution by photo-copying someone elses story, crossing out the other name and pencilling in their own then yeah its pretty easy to be a 'genuine asylum seeker'.Cybargs wrote:
So many of them are economic migrants when over 90% of them have found to be genuine asylum seekers right?
And if the people processing the applications have to write a 20 page legally water-tight document for every rejection, and only have to rubber stamp those they pass its fairly obvious which way its going to swing isn't it?
I'm not saying I'm more knowledgeble, I'm saying you lack comprehension and knowledge. There's a difference. Not that you would understand, clearly.
I'm just going on the observable facts, thanks, you haven't put forward any better argument or information.
Feel free to read up on it:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ … settlement
Australia is already generous in its asylum seeker intake, per capita of the existing population very generous indeed.
Australia takes almost 10 times as many asylum seekers as the the UK does, nasty racist little Englanders the lot of them. Hush now Uzique.
Feel free to read up on it:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ … settlement
Australia is already generous in its asylum seeker intake, per capita of the existing population very generous indeed.
Australia takes almost 10 times as many asylum seekers as the the UK does, nasty racist little Englanders the lot of them. Hush now Uzique.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-07-20 22:24:49)
Fuck Israel
You obviously don't observe mainstream media or do any research into the issue. It's been shown time and time again over 90% of people arriving by boat are genuine refugees. Of course, your xenophobic brain can't comprehend this. It's ok, we understand.
Why wouldn't you want some more South East Asians in your country?
There are quite a lot of SE Asians in Australia.
go away macbeth, this isnt a thread for you to fawn over asian women you sick fuck.Macbeth wrote:
Why wouldn't you want some more South East Asians in your country?
1. It's interesting to note that asylum seekers are a slightly lower percentage of people moving to Australia under Labor than they were the Coalition, yet they're the ones making it a political football.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'm just going on the observable facts, thanks, you haven't put forward any better argument or information.
Feel free to read up on it:
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ … settlement
Australia is already generous in its asylum seeker intake, per capita of the existing population very generous indeed.
Australia takes almost 10 times as many asylum seekers as the the UK does, nasty racist little Englanders the lot of them. Hush now Uzique.
2. Straw man fallacy, no surprise there.
3. I think you're so obsessed with Uzique that because I disagree with you I somehow are comparative to him? I think you're mentally unhinged.
Jaekus wrote:
You obviously don't observe mainstream media or do any research into the issue. It's been shown time and time again over 90% of people arriving by boat are genuine refugees. Of course, your xenophobic brain can't comprehend this. It's ok, we understand.
And you accuse me of ignorance.Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention defines a 'refugee' as:
- a person who is outside his country of nationality or habitual residence
- has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and
- is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.[5]
A Convention 'refugee' is different from an 'asylum seeker' because the former has had their asylum claims assessed and been found to satisfy the above definition. This assessment can be done by a signatory State or the UNHCR. There is no such thing as a 'genuine refugee'. A refugee by technical definition is simply someone who has been recognised as satisfying the above Convention definition.
Its not really hard to meet the UN definition of 'refugee', most people who claim it are economic migrants, as evidenced by them travelling halfway round the world to a rich country with generous welfare, not the first safe country they make it to.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-07-20 22:34:29)
Fuck Israel
We have our own laws determining who is and who is not a refugee. yeah i'm sure those sri lankan tamils getting slaughtered by their government aren't refugees right, or those iraqis and afghanis dont have their life in danger back home right? come on trollbert.
Semantics. You know what I mean yet refuse to acknowledge it. That's fine, I don't care what your thoughts or opinions are. I'm just wasting time on you whilst washing clothes, making a coffee and watching Fremantle lose to Richmond.Dilbert_X wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
You obviously don't observe mainstream media or do any research into the issue. It's been shown time and time again over 90% of people arriving by boat are genuine refugees. Of course, your xenophobic brain can't comprehend this. It's ok, we understand.And you accuse me of ignorance.Article 1 of the 1951 Refugee Convention defines a 'refugee' as:
- a person who is outside his country of nationality or habitual residence
- has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, and
- is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution.[5]
A Convention 'refugee' is different from an 'asylum seeker' because the former has had their asylum claims assessed and been found to satisfy the above definition. This assessment can be done by a signatory State or the UNHCR. There is no such thing as a 'genuine refugee'. A refugee by technical definition is simply someone who has been recognised as satisfying the above Convention definition.
Its not really hard to meet the UN definition of 'refugee', most people who claim it are economic migrants, as evidenced by them travelling halfway round the world to a rich country with generous welfare, not the first safe country they make it to.
http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/ … mfacts.pdf
Hundreds of millions of people have their life in danger, whats your suggestion?Cybargs wrote:
We have our own laws determining who is and who is not a refugee. yeah i'm sure those sri lankan tamils getting slaughtered by their government aren't refugees right, or those iraqis and afghanis dont have their life in danger back home right? come on trollbert.
Fuck Israel
I.. I kinda agree with Dilbert with the whole ' travelling halfway round the world to a rich country with generous welfare, not the first safe country they make it to.'
Kinda.
But then again, who would want to live in any of those countries anyway.
Kinda.
But then again, who would want to live in any of those countries anyway.
dilbert travelled the whole way around the world to find better employment and housing prices than the UK.Adams_BJ wrote:
I.. I kinda agree with Dilbert with the whole ' travelling halfway round the world to a rich country with generous welfare, not the first safe country they make it to.'
Kinda.
But then again, who would want to live in any of those countries anyway.
he is exactly that which he hates.
Thing is most refugees don't travel to Australia and do end up settling in the first safe country they get to. The result of this is a huge amount of refugees housed in developing countries that can't support them, at least not as well as somewhere like Australia.
On another point, my message to Joe Hockey:
I know it's become popular among the vocal Liberal lot but it's squeemishly bad and essentially amounts to name-calling. Don't be jealous just because you can't tap into pop and social media culture Joe.
On another point, my message to Joe Hockey:
I know it's become popular among the vocal Liberal lot but it's squeemishly bad and essentially amounts to name-calling. Don't be jealous just because you can't tap into pop and social media culture Joe.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Stop the oats.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Um no, I travelled half way around the world, a a business class ticket for a a complete circumnavigation would have been a little pricey even for me.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
dilbert travelled the whole way around the world to find better employment and housing prices than the UK.
he is exactly that which he hates.
The benefit was mutual, Australia wants experienced engineers, with cash behind them, to migrate and become productive members of the community, hence it has a migration scheme which takes in ~180,000 people a year.
Plus a humaitarian scheme which lets in ~14,000 a year, well ahead of the UK IIRC
Fuck Israel
the UK is a tiny island with 65 million people in it. australia is a huge empty continent with 20 million people. the world's 5th or 6th largest individual country by size, no? so yes, please cry some more and tell me what an extreme quota for immigration you guys have. fucking berk.
some dickheads think australia is already overpopulated because OMG WE DONT HAVE WATER SOURCES ITS RUNNY DRY GUYSUzique The Lesser wrote:
the UK is a tiny island with 65 million people in it. australia is a huge empty continent with 20 million people. the world's 5th or 6th largest individual country by size, no? so yes, please cry some more and tell me what an extreme quota for immigration you guys have. fucking berk.