---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

 

All this kerflufle about the children of non citizens, yet there is very little said or done about the ill treatment on children who are Australian

 There has recently been a massive, country wide enquiry in the form of a Royal Commission into the ill treatment of Australian children. One of our CS members actually gave evidence to it. How on earth did you manage to miss it?

Yep, missed it, it propbably was not shrill enough

 

 

The righteously indignant should get their priorities in correct order.

Are you suggesting that the welfare and safety of children should be evaluated on a sliding scale depending on whether or not they are "citizens"?

Yep

 

Just a question to ponder over, what rights should be extended to an invader?

How many children have invaded  Australia in the last 20 years and what arms were they carrying?

What makes you think that invasion has to be aemed invasion?

 

 invasion = an unwelcome intrusion into another's domain.

 

---

---

@vicr3000 wrote:
You dont need to carry arms to be an invader.

Citizens are prioritised in other things.

I just wish we didnt have to spend so much money on this type of thing.

---

Bacteria with guns?

---

@gleee58 wrote:

Do you not see how this would open the floodgates to people using children as a way to bypass Australia's border protection laws?

 

Do you not see that half the capacity of the MCG in arrivals over a 6  year period is not "opening the floodgates"?

Do you not see that parents attempting to seek a safe haven with their children in an attempt to save their lives is not using children?

 

 

---

It's not the question of how many more arrivals.

The  question is, how many people would use children, not necessarily their own,  to bypass Australian border security laws?

If we're talking about abuse the the children in detention, this point should be addressed.

Are you suggesting that the welfare and safety of children should be evaluated on a sliding scale depending on whether or not they are "citizens"?

Yep

well colour me gobsmacked! I really did believe that somewhere underneath that cynical exterior there lurked a half decent mhuman being

ele if you had the means to protect one of 2 children and one of them happens to be a family member, wouldnt you protect that one?

I don't see why you are gobsmacked.

We should prioritize based on citizenship.

Other countries put their citizens first all the time. in evcuations, it is your citizens only unless specifically

requested by a country who might not have the means and not too many of them.

Libya being a good example. Clandestine night flight in, load up with UK citizens, fly out. Those close to coast went by ship.

Sierra Leone is another example of UK Citizens only.

Re post above this one.

Well said Pods. You protect your own first.

Judging by your rosy hue it would appear that you have been not only gobsmacked but smacked all over, 🙂

Since the UN HCR is so concerned, we should hand them all over to the UN and let them sort it out.

We build the camp (Manus, Nauru), let them pay for everything else, find out where the people come from

and the true identities and then they present the info to Aus.

I bet you "missing identity documents" would suddently turn up if that was the case.

But the UN wouldn't like that, they like to snipe from the sidelines but not actually take responsibilty

or do the work/heavy lifting. Except buying brand new, air conditioned 4WD's to drive around in.

So ele which one would you choose? You have the captain's pick.