And the boats keep coming

amb said:
How did you guess? Yes, and very proud of it. Last year I donated a total of $550 to the RSPCA.
Click to expand...

Charity starts at home, and you would sooner donate to save a dog than give a starving kid a bag of rice because he doesn't live on the same island you do.
 
Last edited:
I may not agree with what you say but I'll defend your right to say it until my dying breath. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with you though.

I doubt the feeling is reciprocated unfortunately. One of the traits of rampant nationalism is censorship of opposing views.
 
Several posts removed to AAH. Let's try to stay on topic please. And remember, the topic is immigration in Australia, not insulting each other.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
I apologise for any offence taken. Mea culpa an' nat.

Australia will die on it's arse without immigration as it's population is ageing and birth rate falling. What happened to the "baby bonus"? I was going to start a baby farm when Milady and I emigrate. Nice sheltered "paddock" out the back of the Queenslander with some hutches, chicken wire and a hosing down every couple of days. I'll repopulate the continent meself!
 
Wildy said:
You know Alfie, I've already answered your question. I don't need to answer it again.
Click to expand...

Indeed you did, and asked asked "why?" Which remains unanswered

But you also changed your mind it seemed, thus me re-asking my question.

So if you agree that giving priority to (say) those in African refugee camps is the more humane, why would you be arguing so vehemently to give priority to boat arrivals - that is in fact overall less humane?
I have said it before.. boat arrivals are less humane for mine because:
- people die
- others more deserving on humanitarian grounds wait - i.e,. they jump the proverbial queue.

bit_pattern said:
You know, it is possible to do both. There no law writ from God that puts a miserly cap on our refugee intake.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree we need levels of immigration, some skilled, some humanitarian. I don't think anyone is arguing otherwise.

Moderately increasing our quota/cap would not be a bad thing however we must be in a position to support all these people with the necessary infrastructure etc. I was in support of Bowen's suggestion of an increase to 20,000pa.

In short it's about getting the balance right. How many would be a good number to accept do you think? Or would you like to just open the borders up (so to speak) on commitments beyond our means?

Also I am very surprised to hear that you think we need to find the word of God to determine domestic policy. :)
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
Indeed you did, and asked asked "why?" Which remains unanswered
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's that question. Perhaps you should have made that clear instead of re-asking an already answered question. Basically, completely subjective based on the emotive language that you used.

But you also changed your mind it seemed, thus me re-asking my question.

So if you agree that giving priority to (say) those in African refugee camps is the more humane, why would you be arguing so vehemently to give priority to boat arrivals - that is in fact overall less humane?
Click to expand...

It's a bit of a stretch to make conclusions about priority based on a question that's not about it. Unless you think "humane" and "priority" are the same thing?

Then again I did give you a question about priority:

Wildy said:
But what will you do with the boats that make it through? In what order will you process them? Will it be 'all asylum claims' then 'resettlement applications' or will it be 'plane arrivals', 'resettlement applications', 'boat people' or will it be 'resettlement applications' then 'all asylum claims'?
Click to expand...

And you refused to answer it. Perhaps you should.
 
Wildy said:
Oh, so it's that question. Perhaps you should have made that clear instead of re-asking an already answered question. Basically, completely subjective based on the emotive language that you used.
Click to expand...

Well you did seem to change your mind, after all. It was an obvious question for me to ask since you were obviously so confused yourself.

Wildy said:
It's a bit of a stretch to make conclusions about priority based on a question that's not about it. Unless you think "humane" and "priority" are the same thing?
Click to expand...

Nope, no answer in there, I read it three times and I think you are dodging. If you can make a case on priority that is different to humane then I would be glad to hear it.

But I digress, I really want to hear your answer to this:

.. if you agree that giving priority to (say) those in African refugee camps is the more humane, why would you be arguing so vehemently to give priority to boat arrivals - that is in fact overall less humane?

Wildy said:
Then again I did give you a question about priority:

And you refused to answer it. Perhaps you should.
Click to expand...

You first. I believe my question to you is outstanding longer than yours to me. Fair's fair. :)
 
A.A. Alfie said:
If you can make a case on priority that is different to humane then I would be glad to hear it.
Click to expand...

Well since you're the one who thinks that they're the same I'd say that it's up to you to show that they are. But I feel pretty confident that you won't and instead your response will be to try and put the burden of proof back on me.

But I digress, I really want to hear your answer to this:

.. if you agree that giving priority to (say) those in African refugee camps is the more humane, why would you be arguing so vehemently to give priority to boat arrivals - that is in fact overall less humane?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with the premise, therefore the rest of your question doesn't follow. And no, I'm not going to assume a viewpoint I don't hold simply because you've asked the question.

You first. I believe my question to you is outstanding longer than yours to me. Fair's fair. :)
Click to expand...

If you're going to play that game then you have a bunch of questions in post 23 that I presented to you and you didn't answer. After all fair's fair.
 
Wildy said:
I don't agree with the premise, therefore the rest of your question doesn't follow. And no, I'm not going to assume a viewpoint I don't hold simply because you've asked the question.
Click to expand...

What?! So you've changed your mind again?

Are you sure you're not Julia Gillard? :D
 
A.A. Alfie said:
What?! So you've changed your mind again?

Are you sure you're not Julia Gillard? :D
Click to expand...

Considering that I haven't changed my mind to begin with I don't know where you're getting this from.

And when are you going to get around to answering all the questions that have been posed to you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom