Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Send those who fail in their claim home

Send those who fail in their claim home

 

An asylum-seeker gives the thumbs down after his group was put on a bus to be taken to the airport on Christmas Island yesterday. Picture: Colin Murty Source: The Australian

There are so many boats arriving that they barely rate a mention on the news these days but the swelling numbers in immigration detention surely does. With demonstrations from a distressed public in South and Western Australia showing that the public are clearly concerned that our government has both lost the plot and lack any idea where to go on this issue. Gillard and Labor have well and truly snookered herself on this issue because no matter how many claimants are rejected as asylum seekers they still require those claimants to agree to leave after their claims are rejected. Hence we have an ever increasing number of people in indefinite detention all of whom no doubt think that if they hold out long enough will eventually be allowed to stay. Thus we have Gillard trying to offer bribes to these failed claimants so that they will agree to leave without a fuss.

The Government hopes the payment, worth up to $4000 a person, will also reduce the chance of a failed asylum seeker returning to Australia by sea if they could return to their country in a sustainable and dignified way.

Britain and other European countries offer similar assistance through the International Organisation for Migration.

It is the first time the Rudd or Gillard governments have offered to pay for failed asylum seekers to return home.

The Howard government offered a three-year “reintegration assistance” package worth $5.8 million in 2002, but Labor’s then immigration spokeswoman Julia Gillard said it was not a real solution.

While the scheme will cost $5 million, the Government believes it will save if it can persuade people to leave expensive detention centres and it is cheaper than the cost of a forced return.

Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison said the Government had no clear strategy to stop arrivals and was struggling to deal with the “major gridlock” in crowded detention centres.

“This appears to me to be very much an afterthought. It does not amount to a serious returns policy or repatriation strategy,” Mr Morrison said.

Its kind of pathetic that Labor is so lacking in intestinal fortitude on this issue because it seems to me that if there should be no problem deporting failed claimants the day after their last appeal has been rejected and if their lack of consent to being removed from the country is an impediment to that actually happening then Gillard could surely get support from the opposition to change the law so that their consent to removal upon failure of their final appeal was deemed to have been implicit in their appeal.

Its all well and good to claim that we have an obligation to provide protection to those who meet the criteria of the UN convention but such claims have clear (and incredibly broad) criteria so when those criteria have not been met by claimants even the most compassionate lefties have to accept that our obligation to accept the   rejected claimants is non existent. However its clear to me that the  true agenda of the bleeding heart left is that this country should have entirely open borders but that is a recipe for social suicide.

Cheers Comrades

 


36 Comments

  1. jULIAN dZIURAWIEC says:

    Of course you know that here in Amerika, that the desire to protect your borders, jobs and way of life means that you are a racist and a biggot.
    Don’t believe me? Just ask our “so called” President, AND WHY HE REFUSES TO ENFORCE THE LAW THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!!!

  2. Indi Warrior says:

    ‘There are so many boats arriving’
    Counting any more than 3 on one hand is obviously a threat is it?

    ‘…that they barely rate a mention on the news these days’
    No Iain not with people like you around.

    ‘With demonstrations from a distressed public in South and Western Australia’
    A few ignorant souls whipped into a frenzy you mean.

    ‘…our government has both lost the plot and lack any idea where to go on this issue’
    Opinion Iain, not a fact.

    ‘…they still require those claimants to agree to leave after their claims are rejected’
    No Iain that’s not exactly how it works.

    ‘It’s all well and good to claim that we have an obligation to provide protection to those who meet the criteria of the UN convention but such claims’
    Claims Iain? Try using the word FACT instead and you might just get the idea.

    ‘..but that is a recipe for social suicide’
    A bit over the top here Iain, relax and take a break.

    Yes take a break old chap and let the grown up’s deal with this issue.

    Oh, and on a personal note, every observation you have made about me in your witty replies is incorrect.

  3. Iain Hall says:

    Firstly welcome to the Sandpit Julian 🙂

    I agree with what you are saying here that often the problem lays in a government that won’t enforce its own laws sadly its a world wide problem.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    IW

    ‘There are so many boats arriving’
    Counting any more than 3 on one hand is obviously a threat is it?

    From none at the end of the Howard government to 110 this calendar year Hmm that is a substantial increase don’t you think?


    ‘…that they barely rate a mention on the news these days’

    No Iain not with people like you around.

    So are you suggesting that illegal boat arrivals are not a topic worthy of discussion?

    ‘With demonstrations from a distressed public in South and Western Australia’

    A few ignorant souls whipped into a frenzy you mean.

    I just love the way that you minions of the left will insist that a demonstration is a ‘right on” and legitimate expression of the public’s opinion when they are demonstrating for one of your favourite causes (like land rights for gay whales ) yet when ordinary people (rather than Latte sippers) demonstrate you are entirely dismissive.


    ‘…our government has both lost the plot and lack any idea where to go on this issue’

    Opinion Iain, not a fact.

    Just Three words prove my case on this point “East Timor solution”

    ‘…they still require those claimants to agree to leave after their claims are rejected’
    No Iain that’s not exactly how it works.

    It is precisely how it works IW . If you disagree then prove that I am wrong.

    ‘It’s all well and good to claim that we have an obligation to provide protection to those who meet the criteria of the UN convention but such claims’
    Claims Iain? Try using the word FACT instead and you might just get the idea.

    The “claims” that I am referring to here are those made for asylum which are being rejected a a far higher rate now than they have ever been rejected at previously.

    ‘..but that is a recipe for social suicide’
    A bit over the top here Iain, relax and take a break.

    I am entirely “relaxed and comfortable IW

    Yes take a break old chap and let the grown up’s deal with this issue.

    Yawn !!! Its you wimpy lefties who have created this problem with your hypocrisy and deceptions so when yopu own the results then I will no longer have any need to write about it

    Oh, and on a personal note, every observation you have made about me in your witty replies is incorrect.

    Really? I’m not bothered in the least

  5. Sax says:

    IW
    You are quick to dismiss Iain’s (or anyone elses) view or argument here, but we have still to hear your take on the situation ?

    We have discussed “illegal immigration” on these pages many times. Don’t kid yourself either. No matter what you people of the left, with your bleeding hearts call it, that is exactly what it is.

    The “grown-ups”, as you refer them as, have dealt with the issue, and what a grand job of it they have done ? They see the issue as a red hot political potato, and don’t want to involve themselves, in this no win scenario. They are dammed if they do, and dammed if they don’t. That is precisely why nothing gets done, and the rhetoric will continue. Also, that is why we are in the situation we are. So much for the “grups” ?

    Again, the majority of these arrivals aren’t political refugees in fear of their lives, rather, economic migrants seeking a better life for themselves. They send their youngest, and fittest, on the boats, and then if successful, under family reunification, import the masses. Throwing money at them will be unsuccessful under these terms. A single return is failure, when they have a mass family waiting at home with their bags packed, waiting to hit the next Qantas flight to come here ?

    Relax ? A typical response from the left. Why not just cover your ears, and scream out “tingalingaloo” at the top of your voice, and the problem will go away ? So much for the “grups” adult response, but that is exactly what is happening. Hasn’t worked for the last ten years has it ?

  6. ileum says:

    Iain, could you explain the legal process for asylum seekers and why failed claimaints who have exhausted all avenues of appeal have to agree to leave and what problems there are with their deportation?

    “Again, the majority of these arrivals aren’t political refugees in fear of their lives …”

    Utter bullshit, Len.

  7. Iain Hall says:

    Ileum
    I distinctly recall reading that after their final appeal has been rejected failed claimants are required to sign a document agreeing to be repatriated , now for some sort of administrative reason if they fail to do this it creates an impediment to their removal. The activist lawyers tell them not to sign and teh result is that they stay in detention. Of course the Labor government do not want to lose their warm fuzzy feel good factor in the Latte belt so they don’t want to have vision of failed claimants for asylum being manhandled onto planes on the 6 o’clock news so they are being wimpy about forcibly removing anyone.

    The latest reports are suggesting that more than half of the recent arrivals are having their claims for asylum rejected Ileum so if they don’t meet the very generous criteria for refugee status do you think that they should be repatriated?

  8. Sax says:

    Ileum,
    A grand, emotive response statement.
    Little logic or fact behind it, but bravo anyway.
    why is it utter bullshit then ?

    The latest reports are suggesting that more than half of the recent arrivals are having their claims for asylum rejected Ileum so if they don’t meet the very generous criteria for refugee status do you think that they should be repatriated?

    Hmm, we all talking bullshit now Ileum ?

  9. ileum says:

    Haven’t heard of that, Iain. It would be better to know that actual position though.
    Should they be repatriated? If you make it here on a boat I think it shows you are desperate and determined. Just as we admire others who carry out similiar feats, I think if you make it on a boat you are more than likely to be able to make a valuable contribution in society. Bit of a non-issue though on the numbers surely.

    Sax, it is utter bullshit because of the facts:
    http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/BN/sp/AsylumFacts.htm#_Toc260732952

    “Hmm, we all talking bullshit now Ileum ?”

    On the facts – yep. Haven’t seen these “latest reports”.

  10. Iain Hall says:

    So what you are effectively saying is that anyone who can get here on a leaky boat should have the right to stay then Ileum?

    I’ll give you some brownie points for honesty but i think that yours is a really bad idea.

  11. gigdiary says:

    ileum

    If you make it here on a boat I think it shows you are desperate and determined. Just as we admire others who carry out similiar feats…

    An excellent way of determining who should and should not gain entry into Australia… Much as you dismiss other opinions on this thread, you reckon that one’s a goer, eh?

    Yep, sounds good to me. Swim through shark-infested waters, instant citizenship. Doesn’t matter who you are. Throw some money at people smugglers, sit in a leaky boat for a month, yep, you qualify for instant processing, straight to the head of the queue. Flee to the nearest country then apply for entry into Australia? Well, it could be a while, because this lefty has decided that those who climb the highest mountains, swim across the turbulent seas deserve priority. They’re the sort of people we want, gung-ho types.

    Rather than continue this silliness, perhaps you could recognise that you are also applying criteria to who is and isn’t suitable for entry and subsequent citizenship in Australia.

    You are either applying criteria or promoting an open door policy. Which is it?

  12. Sax says:

    If you make it here on a boat I think it shows you are desperate and determined

    It shows certainly that they are desperate and determined, it also shows they watch the news reports, and know what works ? That is why there was the line of boats, at least until Howard shut the door on them ?

    You have also forgotten the fact, (so have the bright sparks that wrote your article it appears ?), at least in the latest Afghani arrivals, the content or make up of those arrivals ? Single men ? Hmm ? No where in your link, nor anywhere else either for that matter, is shown what happens next ?

    Family Reunification Scheme ring a bell ?

    Certainly, the figure is low at 2950 for 2009. I would not begrudge giving those residency, if they were legitimate. But, it doesn’t stop there does it ? The single man refugee, once they qualify, then bring out their wives, their kids, their parents, their grand parents, their cousins, aunties and so it goes on. One refugee suddenly becomes twenty very quickly. Don’t tell me it doesn’t happen, because it does. No where in any table of figures, does that fact come to light. It is successfully buried ?

    I suppose that doesn’t happen either ?

  13. Sax says:

    ha ? Looks like that paragraph struck a chord with us all ?
    😉

  14. Indi Warrior says:

    “Of course the Labor government do not want to lose their warm fuzzy feel good factor in the Latte belt so they don’t want to have vision of failed claimants for asylum being manhandled onto planes on the 6 o’clock news so they are being wimpy about forcibly removing anyone.”

    I don’t recall seeing any big tough Liberal government manhandling people onto planes during the Howard years either.

    (please don’t tell me we didn’t have the problem then. That would just spoil the hope I have for you to one day see the light.)

  15. fyfee says:

    “It shows certainly that they are desperate and determined, it also shows they watch the news reports, and know what works ? That is why there was the line of boats, at least until Howard shut the door on them ?”
    Sax, with respect, it’s the people smugglers (and I do not argue with the fact that they run a sophisticated operation) who are watching the news. Hazaras in Afghanistan and Tamils in Sri Lanka do not in general pick their own destination. As a general rule, they are just needing to get out quickly and a people smuggler has the available product, so they take it.
    Therefore, it is the people smugglers, in my view, who your anger here should be directed against. And that was a failing of the Howard policy- they labelled it as ‘deterrence to people smugglers’, clearly argued it in justification of ‘robbing the people smugglers of their product’- but the people who suffered under such policies were not people smugglers at all, but innocents. To punish innocents to deter the (arguable) criminals is a failing of reason, of ethics, and of humanity.

    “Rather than continue this silliness…” Gigdiary, Ileum here is echoing the famous sentiment recently expressed by one of Australia’s longest serving and most respected Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser. Ileum is, as I see it, pointing out the subjectivity of this whole argument. This theme is probably most famous in the totally unrelated quote, ‘one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter’. Also, the argument is that which is used to point out that Oskar Schindler was a people smuggler. My point is that perhaps Ileum deserves a little more respect than you afford him, and your assumptions may reveal more about the easy polemic arguments that you wish to have, than the real and more complex one that is actually happening.

    I suppose you could probably try and twist my argument into a hysterical left-wing diatribe, but do you think if you respond instead you could do it respectfully and rationally? That’s the kind of debate that really gets somewhere, and it’s exactly how I will try to respond to your points.

  16. ileum says:

    GD, it’s just an opinion, I don’t get to apply or promote anything. Where does one line up for this queue you speak of?

    Sax, I won’t tell you anything doesn’t happen but can you back up the claims you make and explain why it would be a problem?

  17. Sax says:

    I disagree Fyfee. I believe the reverse. It indeed is an operation, that shows a great deal of people, as well as material coordination. The actual smugglers themselves, are simply one of the major players.

    What about the intelligence they must gather before setting sail ? What country to go to, what the political climate is in that destination country, where in that country to land etc ? Who is providing this information ? Where do the passengers want to go ? It would be a massive operation to bring together. For that many people, to just show up at the docks, with their bags of money, without any of this coordination, just wouldn’t happen. For the smugglers to succeed, they must maintain a fairly high success rate, otherwise, their prospective clients wouldn’t bother knocking on their doors would they ?

    The Sri Lankan civil war has been going on for bloody decades. Why head for the boats now ?

    Finally, no point aiming your anger at the people smugglers, they are simply taking advantage of a way to make a quick buck. For them to put their boats to this trade, rather than their traditional employment, never to see them again after arriving at their destination ports, it must be a pretty lucrative business for them. After all, the captains of these vessels end up in detention as well as their cargo ? The market, as well as the profit margins, have to be there in the first place ? Don’t kid yourself, they are making the bucks, and big ones, compared to what they get if they still used their boats for fishing ? Even if they do get repatriated, first thing they do when they get back, is, out of the money they made, is go and buy another bloody boat, and do the same thing again ?

  18. gigdiary says:

    So with this declaration by the High Court that detention centres are illegal, does this mean you could turn up at Circular Quay and apply to have your claim assessed. Or if you reckon your claim is a bit dodgy, get off the boat at Circular Quay and disappear into your ethnic community. Sure you won’t get any welfare or citizenship, but you’ll be able to make a great living on the black market. Although your competition may increase as others do the same thing.

    This is a decision we will regret in fifteen years’ time. More so than the Fraser and Keating immigration policies. This is not open door, it’s open slather.

  19. Sax says:

    Interesting point GD ?
    Whatever you call them, they are still illegal immigrants, so, I guess, as law breakers, if no detention centres, then prison ?

    Could be like the US. The Mexican border is opened at knock off time, to allow the illegal workers back across the border ?

  20. fyfee says:

    Firstly, thank you lots for the calm and respectful reply! That’s the kind of constructivism that makes these debates worthwhile, rather than me going off thinking you’re a redneck loony, you going off thinking I’m a bleeding heart, self righteous hippy. Both of us, I think would be far from the mark.

    “For the smugglers to succeed, they must maintain a fairly high success rate, otherwise, their prospective clients wouldn’t bother knocking on their doors would they ?”

    Actually, no. Hundreds of asylum seekers die at sea (mostly in international waters, and we in Australia will never hear about them, but I have been told by asylum seekers who made it here of many friends who were not so lucky). However, if you face a very real threat of being tortured, raped or murdered, the chance to go anywhere is enough.

    “For that many people, to just show up at the docks, with their bags of money, without any of this coordination, just wouldn’t happen.”

    Further, statements by asylum seekers, confirmed by DIAC officials within Afghanistan (I cannot speak for any other group, as I only have firm knowledge of Hazaras) tell the tale of people smugglers who sell the journey as a luxury cruise to a country that will welcome them (in seriousness). The majority of Hazara asylum seekers have no idea that some Australians would consider their methods illegal (particularly because they’re not- arriving at the country where they wish to apply before applying is the most legitimate form of seeking refuge under the Refugee Convention), and in all honesty no idea that they will be put in detention. There are asylum seekers who have with them swimsuits, because the people smuggler has told them the boat to Australia is a cruise ship with a swimming pool on board. Why would rural Afghans, with no access to internet, think to be suspicious about this? Even if they are, often it is their only hope of survival.

    Sax, could you please tell me which law they have broken? Specifically? Because there is certainly no law about turning up without documentation IF you plan to apply for refugee status, that I can guarantee.

  21. gigdiary says:

    No, Sax, they’ll sign up for the Centrelink check, and then disappear. If you’re not a bone fide refugee you’d be off like Dad’s pants. And we’ll never see them again. Except in the burgeoning 2011 black market.

    How else are they going to survive?

  22. gigdiary says:

    fyfee, what is your answer to immigration? an open door, or now as the High Court has decided, open slather…

    No other first world country has adopted this policy. Are we the only ones who are getting right?

  23. Indi Warrior says:

    oh dear Sax your ignorance is worrisome …..

  24. Sax says:

    No GD , you catch them pretty easily around building sites, orchards picking time, and any other menial task, that they can’t find workers for. That is pretty well standard isn’t it ?

    Fyfee , I cannot honestly see the population hitting these boats, are that naive to think they were being offered cabins on the Oriana, for their voyage out here ? I have served “in the area”, and the people are not that naive. They are a hardened, battle weary people certainly, but they are not stupid by any means. On the contrary, they are extremely “street smart” ! Over the last years, the intelligence getting back to the embarkation countries, is telling them, that success is going to be highly questionable. They are being coached in what to do, and say, to increase their success. They have to be, otherwise, the word gets back, and the smugglers would lose their potential meal tickets very quickly ? Whatever you have read in the media, having served (although some years ago now, I will admit), they know the lay of the land.

    As for laws being broken, hmm, arriving without a valid visa is the first cab off the rank. Ever tried landing in a country without one ? These people have no passports, usually no ID of any kind, no immunization cards health records et al, so who knows who they are, and what their intentions are ? This is done on purpose, to further cloud the process upon arrival, to validate their “desperate” status ?

    Whatever your humanitarian concerns, it is simply not only inadvisable to let them in, but insane ?

  25. gigdiary says:

    These people have no passports, usually no ID of any kind, no immunization cards health records et al, so who knows who they are, and what their intentions are ?

    Good point Sax.

  26. fyfee says:

    “Whatever you have read in the media”
    Actually, my information comes from speaking and interacting directly with asylum seekers; both those who arrive by boat and are in detention centres, and those who arrive by plane and are living within the community, and through conversations with friends who legally represent asylum seekers.
    Gigdiary- no asylum seeker is eligible for Centrelink, or Medicare.
    Does it not worry that you are basing your opinion on a very vulnerable group of people on information that is patently untrue? While I accept everyone’s right to an opinion, the fact that a group of people are suffering because of assumptions and conclusions formed from untrue or misunderstood information is so wrong. Do you agree with this?
    Sax, the point of processing is for DIAC officials in those countries to confirm the stories of the asylum seekers, by going to their communities and making sure their stories are accurate and that people can confirm their identities, and for them to have a thorough health screening.
    For a group as blatantly, overtly and maliciously persecuted as the Hazaras- and no-one can deny the atrocity that happened in Mazar-e-Sharif, among other places, their intentions are pretty obvious. I would say one is, not spend every day with a real risk of being murdered.

    As for laws being broken, hmm, arriving without a valid visa is the first cab off the rank. Ever tried landing in a country without one?

    How can you not accept that this is untrue? You will not find back up for this on any legal or government source. IF- and there MUST be the IF, you arrive unauthorised (eg-without papers, visa, passport, identity) but with the intent of applying for refugee status, you are DOING NOTHING ILLEGAL. It is within Australia’s international obligations to process asylum seekers. Here is MY evidence, straight from the government,

    “The Humanitarian Program has two important functions:

    * it fulfils our international obligations by offering protection to people already in Australia who are found to be refugees according to the Refugees Convention (known as the onshore protection/asylum component)”

    from http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm

    Protection will not be offered to people who are breaking the law.

  27. fyfee says:

    Sorry- must expand a little.
    “Actually, my information comes from speaking and interacting directly with asylum seekers; both those who arrive by boat and are in detention centres, and those who arrive by plane and are living within the community, and through conversations with friends who legally represent asylum seekers.”
    Also, through DIAC reports and personal friendships with DIAC officers, through reports through a number of organisations, including my own, such as UNHCR, ASC, Amnesty Internation, ASRC. Also through peer-reviewed journal articles and books.
    Also through my degree in this field.
    I can assure you that the swim suit anecdote is quite true. While this information and tales of this type are clearly not indicative of ALL asylum seekers, it is certainly true of SOME, and therefore to imply that ALL asylum seekers are knowingly breaking the law (which incidentally, NONE of them are) is patently untrue.
    Also, you know as well as I that not having access to information and not having the capacity for intelligence are two vastly different things. I am not implying that asylum seekers are stupid for believing the people smugglers. However, I do respect you for attacking the position you thought I was taking.

    Whatever your humanitarian concerns, it is simply not only inadvisable to let them in, but insane ?

    Actually, no (is my opinion). Australia, as made in my point above, has an obligation to provide refugee status to asylum seekers who are processed and found to be a true refugee. Australia, both in terms of actuality and proportion as related to the population, has a notably low figure of refugees accepted each year.
    If accepting all refugees, (who, incidentally, have been found by OXFAM and UNHCR in seperate independent studies to integrate remarkably well into Australian society) is madness, what do you call the Australia’s migration program, of which the humanitarian program comprised 1.6%? Perhaps it is not asylum seekers you should be angry at..

  28. Iain Hall says:

    fyfee

    Sorry- must expand a little.
    “Actually, my information comes from speaking and interacting directly with asylum seekers; both those who arrive by boat and are in detention centres, and those who arrive by plane and are living within the community, and through conversations with friends who legally represent asylum seekers.”
    Also, through DIAC reports and personal friendships with DIAC officers, through reports through a number of organisations, including my own, such as UNHCR, ASC, Amnesty Internation, ASRC. Also through peer-reviewed journal articles and books.
    Also through my degree in this field.
    I can assure you that the swim suit anecdote is quite true. While this information and tales of this type are clearly not indicative of ALL asylum seekers, it is certainly true of SOME, and therefore to imply that ALL asylum seekers are knowingly breaking the law (which incidentally, NONE of them are) is patently untrue.

    The focus of this piece is on the apparent reluctance of the government to to deport rejected asylum seekers who definitely are breaking the law if they attempt to stay in this country after their claims have been fully accessed and then rejected.

    Actually, no (is my opinion). Australia, as made in my point above, has an obligation to provide refugee status to asylum seekers who are processed and found to be a true refugee. Australia, both in terms of actuality and proportion as related to the population, has a notably low figure of refugees accepted each year.

    I actually think that this country does rather well on accepting refugees especially though our formal refugee resettlement programs But the more people that are allowed to just front up in leaky boats and then stay here makes the public less willing to accept any refugees

    If accepting all refugees, (who, incidentally, have been found by OXFAM and UNHCR in seperate independent studies to integrate remarkably well into Australian society) is madness, what do you call the Australia’s migration program, of which the humanitarian program comprised 1.6%? Perhaps it is not asylum seekers you should be angry at..

    Its not accepting refugees that is the issue but rejecting those who become clients of people smugglers of which nearly half are now being rejected as “refugees” anyway.

  29. Sax says:

    I think Iain puts forward the points that need to be reinforced.
    I have said all along that legitimate refugees should be allowed entry, but as Iain points out, these are people that aren’t refugees, should be treated as illegal immigrants and sent home.

  30. ileum says:

    Sax and Gigdiary, no offence but you are both spouting a lot of rubbish. What’s the aversion to facts?

  31. Sax says:

    What facts are those Ileum ? The real ones, or the propaganda they want you to believe ?

    So, you are saying that everyone that arrives in a leaky boat, should be allowed permanent residency on their say so alone ?

    Who’s talking rubbish now ?

  32. Indi Warrior says:

    its a waste of time Ileum, Sax and Gig are made of stone.

  33. Sax says:

    There is no logical rebuttal for plain old common sense.
    Stone has nothing to do with it. We are being taken for a ride. It is fine to be humanitarian, but there are those, (and there are a lot of them), that would take advantage of that good nature for whatever end.

    A bit of prudence, and a little common sense is all that is required here, and forget the emotive claptrap ?

  34. ileum says:

    Common sense? I guess that rules you out, Sax. You’re the one carrying on with the unsubstanstiated claptrap.

  35. Iain Hall says:

    With respect Ileum You are the one who has got upset because you don’t want to believe that more asylum claimants are now being rejected than ever before despite the fact that it has been thus reported many times recently.

  36. Sax says:

    I guess it is a tough pill to swallow Iain, when you believe that everyone is honest in their dealings and outlook on life ?

    When reality does hit you Ileum, make certain that your feet are well planted. The fall could kill ya ?

    Regardless of how you look at it, there are many out there, that take advantage of this country’s benevolence, and we fall for it every time. To say, that allowing everyone in, even if a small percentage are lying through their teeth to do so, is a good thing, is short sighted, and comes from a corner of intelligence that has absolutely no idea as to what effect that has on a country and its economy.
    How do we teach responsible sustainability, when we have bleeding hearts advocating disaster as we are seeing above.

    Common sense and reality must be pretty thin at the altitude your head is at Ileum ?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: