What is worse?

[donnashuggy]

Those that overstay their visa that fly in (majority)

or

Those that arrive by boat.......with the possibily of seeking asylum (unlikely) and sent back.

I generally keep up with what is going on and don't understand the governments fixation with boats when the numbers are the clear minority.

[carls*world]

---

@am*3 wrote:

---

---

When & how would they apply for and get granted an Australian short stay visa? Go to their countries Aust embassy/ High commission ( if they have one, Afghanistan doesn't for one) and apply for a holiday visa before they flee?

---

Last time I looked, Afghanistan didn't have any ports to launch fishing boats either.


Think about it for a minute...........

[donnashuggy]

My three grandchildren are Maori boris, it's ok 🙂

[boris1gary]

donna, not you I was worrying about, pretty sure you (positive really)  wouldn't partake in any racist fear mongering of any kind.

[donnashuggy]

I think Australians are somewhat confused about where the real trouble is boris 🙂

For those that like to see statistics, it is pretty clear who causes the trouble in this country and it ain't asylum seekers lol

[boris1gary]

No it's that terrible left wing public broadcaster the ABC.

[donnashuggy]

Since the good old days of the 7.30 report when both sides were properly scrutinized I would say that the ABC is anything but left wing.

[boris1gary]

exactly what I reckon, started thinking maybe we had different ABC here.

[tall_bearded]

I really think is time some took a deep breath and seriously considered the consequences of what they are proposing.

Australia like every other country has laws governing not only who can came and stay, but also how many, and when we are taking about the how many, this number is subdivided into specific groups (humanitarian, family reunion, skills etc.) with of course refugees falling within the humanitarian category.

Now worldwide there are millions who would currently qualify for the definition of refugee and therefore if they all could get here would qualify for asylum.  If you now extend that definition to those living in poverty, or simply no longer want to live where they are, then, the numbers increases to the billions.

So I pose the following linked question to those who take issue with Australia’s performance when it comes to our humanitarian intake to date, noting that per capita we have one of the highest intakes in the category in the world:

What do you say should be the criteria when determining whether a person qualifies for immigration on humanitarian grounds? 

Do your accept that the problem is so large that we are simply not in a position to take the lot?

If you agree we can’t take the lot, then how many do you say we could take?

If you accept that we need to restrict the numbers we can take, what do say should happen to those who arrive, fall within the definition you have set, but are excess to the humanitarian quota you have decided on?  

[donnashuggy]

I have no answers, I simply object to the government using people for political advantage and there is not much doubt that is what they are doing. if they are concerned about these people because of cultural reasons they should be able to back it up with some facts.

[tall_bearded]

How are they being used for political advantage when every decision made results in open criticism?