Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Cynicism about chancers is not optional

Cynicism about chancers is not optional

Predictably the minions of the left are making very big shows of compassion for the family (in INDIA) of  Leo Seemanpiallai, and of course its right to show compassion for their loss however, if I may be so bold as to suggest that letting family members to enter this country to attend his funeral would be a very bad idea.

A new way to be an immigration vanguard? click for source

A new way to be an immigration vanguard?
click for source

The likely hood is that any person that comes to attend this funeral will then try to stay and if that attempt succeeds then what is the bet that other Tamil illegal immigrants would be trying the same “trick”? OK I know that I am going to accused of being insensitive for making this suggestion but its something that does have to be said out aloud because its just so obvious that the bleeding hearts are going to try to wedge the government if any family members do make it here for a funeral.

Cynicism about chancers is not optional, its mandatory because we all know that no heart string will be left unpliucked  no appeal for compassion will be left unmade and no condemnation for “cruelty” will be withheld when the inevitable and necessary  government toughness is manifested. Just you wait and see how this plays out.

Sigh Comrades, a very big sigh indeed.



  1. Jeff G. says:

    That’s what we love about you Iain, your warmth and compassion and generosity for your fellow human beings. Well the white ones anyway.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Tell me honestly if you think that family members, if allowed to travel here for the funeral would just quietly get back on a plane afterwards.
    Oh and drop the bullshit claims about racism, because it wins you no friends here

  3. Jeff G. says:

    If the family is coming from India, then I would say there’s every chance they would get back on the plane afterwards, since the proportion of asylum seekers coming here from India is very low.

    Do you have specific info that the family members are likely to seek asylum? I very much doubt that you do.

    Interesting though that you never moan about the 30,000 odd Brits, Americans, Canadians and Europeans who over stay their tourist visas and/or engage in illegal work here. Also interesting that you reckon I should avoid saying what I think so we can all be “friends”.

  4. GD says:

    the 30,000 odd Brits, Americans, Canadians and Europeans who over stay their tourist visas and/or engage in illegal work here

    Do you have a link for that, Jeff? At least they are working and not lining up at Centrelink like our Middle Eastern friends.

    And that link is…

  5. Jeff G. says:

    Unlike some I am always happy to provide links, although it seems I recalled the figures wrong.


    “There are almost 50,000 visa overstayers living illegally in Australia.
    More than one in 10 is from China.
    Entrants from the US, Malaysia and Britain are also big overstayers.”

  6. Jeff G. says:

    So GD, you are happy for illegal immigrants to work here illegally. Just don’t, err, arrive here illegally on a boat.

    Good consistent position mate, makes a lot of sense. Keep it up the good work.

  7. GD says:

    Jeff, illegal Brits, Americans, Canadians and Europeans who over stay their tourist visas aren’t bludging on welfare. What part of that can’t you understand?

  8. Jeff G. says:

    Illegal immigrants aren’t bludging on welfare because they can’t apply for welfare. What part of that can’t YOU understand?

    I say again, you’re happy for illegal immigrants to work illegally – which takes jobs from Australians and forces THEM onto welfare. But you’re on a jihad against Middle Easterners who arrive here, are processed and allowed to stay, temporarily or otherwise. Makes no sense.

    What is the real issue? Immigrants being here illegally? Immigrants being here and claiming welfare? Or immigrants of a particular persuasion being here? Make up your mind.

  9. GD says:

    you’re happy for illegal immigrants to work illegally – which takes jobs from Australians and forces THEM onto welfare.

    Rubbish! Forces them onto to welfare? FFS

    Just how is it possible for a person who isn’t a citizen to get a job ahead of a person who is a citizen?

    I’ll answer that. Fruit picking and other menial jobs that ‘citizens’ refuse to accept while partaking of Centrelink generosity. Those ‘citizens’ include muslims on welfare.

    Wake up and smell the roses, Jeff.

  10. Jeff G. says:

    And how do you know that ‘citizens’ refuse these jobs, GD? I’ll wait for you to post a link on that.

    Your ‘arguments’ are a gigantic blended turd of stereotypes. Muslims are all on the dole… People on the dole are too lazy to work… Illegal workers are doing important menial work that nobody else wants.

    Do you have any evidence to back up these claims? The hell you do.

    I often wonder whether you actually live in the same world as us, or if you just sit in your room or studio and get all your views and pathetic hatred from the Daily Tele.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    If you have been following the story with any depth you should have realised that this chap had originally departed frm a refugee camp in India where his family are living peacefully and safely. They like him claim to be “refugees” from Sri Lanka. Now that I have explained this would you care to rephrase your answer.

    As for other over-stayers well I am more than happy to see them promptly deported but the simple fact is that most of them are not trying to stay permanently and most when caught leave voluntarily so that they don’t get banned from reentry for a couple of years. Unlike the so called asylum seekers they don’t instigate a long futile and expensive legal process in an effort to stay here.

  12. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, saying things like:

    ‘They like him claim to be “refugees” from Sri Lanka’ and
    ‘the so called asylum seekers’

    tends to suggest you’re prejudging these people as not genuine refugees. On what basis do you make that assumption? How was it that the (now) dead guy was processed by our authorites who carried out all the checks and determined he was indeed a genuine regugee? You should perhaps write a letter to your precious Messrs Abbott and Morrison and ask them why they are allowing non-genuine refugees to stay in our country. You too, GD, only you should perhaps send yours to Fiona the MP Einstein from Western Sydney. While you’re at it, Iain, why not submit your case for being appointed head of asylum seeker investigations, seeing that you know better than the guys presently doing those jobs?

  13. Iain Hall says:

    Ray I judge them on the simple fact that the civil war is long over and that having returned to their ancestral homeland in southern India (where Tamils originate from) they are stretching credulity to claim that they are persecuted.

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    I judge them

    Says it all, Iain. You should definitely go for the job as head of Immigration if you think you know better than they do. Abbott will be impressed by your ability to make assessments without so much as an iota of evidence or due diligence. Or maybe not – seeing that he actually supports the refugee program.

  15. Iain Hall says:

    When it comes to matters of veracity it so often comes down to our “gut feelings” and then a search for validation of those feelings through the available evidence. The facts about the situation in Sri Lanka is simply that the very nasty civil war is over and that the Tamil tigers comprehensively lost. That is actually a good result for that country and those Tamils who are unhappy about it are welcome to go back to the India they (or their ancestors) came from they can also stay in Sri Lanka and contribute to rebuilding the country. But we are under no obligation to provide them with immigration opportunities. It is my cynicism about human nature and the way that so many would be economic migrants want to game the system that has led me to think that a certain type of outcome should this man’s relatives come here for the funeral. I would be most pleased to be wrong and to find that they would act honorably and leave as per the conditions of a visitor’s visa but I don’t think even you believe that they would.

  16. Ray Dixon says:

    we are under no obligation to provide them with immigration opportunities

    Well, you are at odds with even the Coalition on that one, Iain. The Coalition has previously let plenty of Sri Lankan Tamils into Australia as refugees and I don’t see any move to send them back now that the war is over. I’m sure Scott would look favourably at your point of view …. but stop short of implementing it because even he isn’t as hard line as that.

  17. GD says:

    Once again, Ray, how many?

    Iain, as usual, is across the facts whereas you ignore the points he makes; such as the war in Sri Lanka being long over. Why are you hankering for an influx of unknown, unskilled people from foreign cultures?

    You or I can’t lob up on the shores of California or New York and seek work, let alone be given welfare. It has always been that way in the USA. Why should Australia be an open door, come one, come all, dumping ground for the world’s economic country shoppers?

    Australia currently has an established refugee resettlement program for those in UN refugee camps.

    Why do leftists insist we take everyone who decides they’d like to live in Australia but can’t be bothered going through the legal channels?

  18. Ray Dixon says:

    how many?

    Ask Scott – he’s got a figure of somewhere around 20,000 refugees per year, I think. Is that okay by you Mr Closed Doors?

  19. Jeff G. says:

    Why do leftists insist we take everyone who decides they’d like to live in Australia but can’t be bothered going through the legal channels?

    Asylum seekers do go through legal channels. It’s visa overstayers (who you seem to support) who don’t go through legal channels.

    Gents, for a good laugh, read the “@boltcomments” Twitter feed. It is all wacky comments lifted from Bolt’s blog. They are so batshit they even make GD sound sensible and moderate.

  20. GD says:

    Jeff, you could take a walk on the wild side and actually visit Bolt’s blog. His commenters are erudite and lucid, unlike commenters on the Drum. It reflects on yourself that you quote twitter..

    Man up and visit the blog and comment, I dare you!

  21. GD says:

    btw, have you leftists been following the Royal Commission into Trade Union Governance and Corruption?


    I thought not. However, the sh*t is going to hit the fan next week.

    And you reckoned a bottle of wine was reason to get rid of Barry O’Farrell.

  22. Ray Dixon says:

    Man up and visit the blog and comment, I dare you!

    GD, there’s nothing manly about visiting a blog like Bolt’s and making an anonymous comment among thousands of other anonymous comments. I’d rate joining in Bolt’s blog as simply hiding yourself among a very large crowd. It’s the scaredy cats way of getting something off your chest, with no chance of it coming back at you or even being noticed for that matter. Same goes for the Drum. I think the smaller blogs like this one are where you can be more expressive and where you can get feedback and genuine debate. Well, sometimes.

  23. Jeff G. says:

    It reflects on yourself that you quote twitter..

    Actually I didn’t “quote Twitter”. I was just noting that that particular Twitter account is good for a laugh. Ordinarily I don’t bother with Twitter but if you want a stream of stupid opinions, then it’s the place to go.

    Man up and visit the blog and comment, I dare you!

    I have. I stopped reading Bolt’s blog for two reasons. The first one is that 50% of the people there are like you, i.e. one eyed far right shouters who are full of hate for asylum seekers, Labor, “the left”, etc. etc. There are some good commenters there but you have to sift through the dross to find them.

    The second reason is that Bolt’s blog is a police state. I made three comments there, one agreeing with something he had written and two disagreeing. They only published the one agreeing with him, the other two were not let through, even though they were polite and not abusive.

    It seems to me that you can say pretty much anything on Bolt’s blog so long as you are attacking the ‘other side’, i.e. Labor and “the left”. So much for his concern for freedom of speech. I might not agree with Iain’s politics but at least he runs an open ship here and people can say what is on their mind. I cannot stand blogs moderated along political lines and Bolt is a coward for running one.

  24. Jeff G. says:

    I thought not. However, the sh*t is going to hit the fan next week.

    I am not really interested in this royal commission at the moment. At present it is all just ‘he said she said’. Yes, Bruce Wilson and his bagmen have been exposed as corrupt scumbags but we knew that already. The real investigation will take place behind the scenes when the commissioners go digging through paperwork and bank accounts. I think I will wait until the commission hands down its findings.

  25. GD says:

    Good to see your ABC is keeping up with the latest news..

  26. GD says:

    Speaking of your ABC, here’s the latest article from the tax-payer funded ABC website, the Conversation 😦

    Why haven’t we encountered aliens yet? The answer could be climate change

    Really? Yes, folks, that’s your tax dollars at work shovelling sh*t from the ABC.

  27. GD says:

    Jennie George, former ACTU president and Labor MP, is not impressed by one ABC presenter’s attempt to whitewash Bruce Wilson:

    Jon Faine, well known ABC broadcaster, gives a free plug to Bruce Wilson reading from his unsworn statement. At the same time, the counsel assisting the royal commission puts the case as to why Wilson should face criminal charges. Supporters of the ABC expect the public broadcaster to act impartially and in accordance with its charter. Faine has failed the test.

  28. Ray Dixon says:

    Your obsession with nitpicking and cherry picking various pieces from the ABC in order to prove your ridiculous theory that it’s a leftist organisation working against the interests of your precious Coaltion Govt is totally pathetic, GD.

    And yeah (or should that be ‘Yeah, Yeah, Yeah’?), the most interesting story this week was indeed the marking of the 50th anniversary of the Beatles tour of Australia. That had a profound effect on our country, on our generation and our culture. Where were you when it happened? You were probably with Bob Katter in Brisbane throwing eggs at John Lennon.

    Btw, this RC into the unions is a political witch hunt designed to deflect from (a) the Budget (b) the ICAC inquiry into senior Liberal figures. Wilson is not a politician, he’s a bloody ex-union d*ckhead and I agree he should possibly face criminal charges – but it shouldn’t take a $100m RC to do that, what a waste. Your attempts to align the likes of Wilson with Labor and claim that it discredits them is a real stretch. That’s like saying the skulduggery of Nathan Tinkler discredits the Coalition. Hmm … maybe some of it does!

  29. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh, and the 2nd most interesting/important news story this week was the death (yesterday) of Jim Keays, another Aussie icon from the 60s. It’s a pity you took the conservative route, GD. If you’d been a bit more out there in your earlier music days it could have been your contribution to our cutural history that’d be making news (well, not until you’re dead but you get my drift?).

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: