The Children Overboard issue develops

[Jimbo]

And of course, the rates the smugglers charge are a pittance compared to other means of transport, aren't they?

What exactly is your point?

My point is, if they can afford to pay a smuggler to ship them out here, they can afford to wait their turn like everyone else has to.

 

[mickdo]

P.S.

'Illegal' refers to breaking laws.

We're talking about the Migration Act, which someone was kind enough to post earlier. An Act of Parliament. A law.

These guys are contravening said Act. Breaking a law. Which, by your own definition, is illegal...

You obviously aren't a lawyer. That is just so very wrong. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[mickdo]

And of course, the rates the smugglers charge are a pittance compared to other means of transport, aren't they?

What exactly is your point?

My point is, if they can afford to pay a smuggler to ship them out here, they can afford to wait their turn like everyone else has to.

Except that in certain countries there is no queue to join...

 

[andrew flap]

Jimbo says - And of course, the rates the smugglers charge are a pittance compared to other means of transport, aren't they?

As a matter of fact no, it's about the equivalent of $20000. None of these people would be able to board a plane as Oz immigration are stationed at most of the jump off points(airports). Also, the carrier gets fined $1000 ever time they bring in a unlawful so, they won't let them on the plane.

 

[Jimbo]

I suggested before that if you (and any one else) feel strongly about refugees one way or the other, start a thread, I'll happily air my views there.

Sorry, but the title of the thread is "The Children Overboard issue develops." I believe there are several other threads about John Howard's integrity though

 

[Snoop]

P.S.

'Illegal' refers to breaking laws.

We're talking about the Migration Act, which someone was kind enough to post earlier. An Act of Parliament. A law.

These guys are contravening said Act. Breaking a law. Which, by your own definition, is illegal...

That someone was me, which followed a post challenging anyone to show how these people were breaking the law. The challenge has not been met as yet and to save yourself time, don't bother trying to meet the challenge. The simple fact is that they have not broken any laws.

 

[andrew flap]

Jimbo says -We're talking about the Migration Act, which someone was kind enough to post earlier. An Act of Parliament. A law.

These guys are contravening said Act. Breaking a law. Which, by your own definition, is illegal...

Reply - Jimbo, you are wrong. It's not a criminal offence to be illegal or arrive without a visa. You can't be charged and you can't go to gaol for it. There are no fines or punishmnent for it either. The Migration Act determines the status of non citizens in Australia.

 

[^ Pando]

There are no fines or punishmnent for it either.

Breaking immigration laws can lead to deportation. Is that a punishment?

 

[Snoop]

There are no fines or punishmnent for it either.

Breaking immigration laws can lead to deportation. Is that a punishment?

No.

 

[^ Pando]

There are no fines or punishmnent for it either.

Breaking immigration laws can lead to deportation. Is that a punishment?

No.

We should deport them all then. :lol:

 

[0neye]

they are QUEUE JUMPERS that need to be questioned & quarantined who knows they could be looney muzzies ;-)

 

[Jimbo]

There are no fines or punishmnent for it either.

Breaking immigration laws can lead to deportation. Is that a punishment?

No.

We should deport them all then. :lol:

Amen brother!!

 

[ibeme]

PM refuses to take polygraph test

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508455241.html

I know it's unrealistic to expect the PM to take a polygraph test, but it would be interesting if Scrafton did, and passed.

 

[mickdo]

PM refuses to take polygraph test

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/17/1092508455241.html

I know it's unrealistic to expect the PM to take a polygraph test, but it would be interesting if Scrafton did, and passed.

If Howard did take the test, the machine would melt down!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[^ Pando]

:roll:

 

[Jimbo]

"I'm not going to get into gimmicks like that," he told ABC radio.

"If people don't believe what I say on the basis of looking at me and listening to my words then going through a mechanical process like that is not going to alter their opinions."


It's hard to argue with his logic, isn't it?

 

[Jimbo]

"The prime minister has shown that he's not fit to hold the high office."

Pots and black kettles, Mr Latham...

 

[0neye]

This is old news get over it all you left wing loonies :roll: VOTE 1 for honest JOHN

 

[ibeme]

"I'm not going to get into gimmicks like that," he told ABC radio.

"If people don't believe what I say on the basis of looking at me and listening to my words then going through a mechanical process like that is not going to alter their opinions."


It's hard to argue with his logic, isn't it?

Not necessarily. I wouldn't call the machine a gimmick. They've been proven to be pretty accurate, and have been used in criminal investigations.

Also, if he were to take the test (unrealistic as I've said), and were to pass, while his accuser failed, then surely that would help more than hinder his argument. If he's telling the truth, then he's got nothing to lose.

 

[Snoop]

"I'm not going to get into gimmicks like that," he told ABC radio.

"If people don't believe what I say on the basis of looking at me and listening to my words then going through a mechanical process like that is not going to alter their opinions."


It's hard to argue with his logic, isn't it?

What about the people who do believe what he says on the basis of looking at him and listening to his words. Failing a mechanical process could alter their opinions.

There, I argued against it, without much difficulty.