turboplanner

How childish Someone explains that people in the centres are free to leave and go home. Immediately someone else proves he can't read by saying they are deprived of their freedom. And you do your best to inflame the situation by giving it a "Winner" label How utterly pathetic.

Well read the whole act then - the link is there, and while you are about it read the other Acts which relate to the process, then maybe you might make some sense

Once again, have a look at the title of this thread; is says illegal immigrants; you now have the definition directly from the Act. There is nothing misleading about that whatsoever. Seeking Asylum is not illegal, and I previously mentioned what Australia has been doing and provided the statistics for you.

Not creative at all, you were concerned about the definition of illegal immigrants. We've established that what I was saying is backed up by the Migration Act 1958 so that's the end of that. If you want to move on to other things, where you may well be just as out of touch, then feel free to do your own research. I have no idea what you are suggesting that I don't like; it looks to me like you're just trying to squirm out and start another subject.

Why would you have to agree to something that's not true? This is not a tennis match.

Just four posts ago I gave you a direct link to the Migration Act 1958 This is what it says in relation to what I posted in #592 [ATTACH]47431._xfImport[/ATTACH]

Well FH, the first fact is that the people you are referring to play no part in it. AUSTRALIA issues the Visas for entry.

I did look it up, days ago and that's why I've been saying what I've been saying, only to get "creative ratings from you. I'm very comfortable with the thread title, and that it's appropriate for Australia at the present time. Since you apparently had difficulty finding a simple piece of legislation here goes: Click on http://www.comlaw.gov.au/ The 13th piece of legislation linked is the Migration Act 1958 Click on that Scroll down so the top of the button is about 40 mm below the inside top border What should be showing is Part 2 Look at Division 1 and 13 & 14 define Lawful non-citizens, and Unlawful Non-citizens. Note the simple explanation that an Unlawful non-citizen is someone in the migration zone who doesn't have a Visa. Attached is a screen shot of the applicable part of the Migration Act 1958 Migration Act 1958 - Illegal Immigrant.pdf Migration Act 1958 - Illegal Immigrant.pdf

I previously mentioned that the government needs to address the post - manufacturing era for Australia. Here's a sobering view from Ford Motor Company: [Warning some viewers may be offended by the fact that this was published by Rupert Murdoch, is offered by a capitalist, and is presented by someone who has a job] http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/ford-global-boss-alan-mulally-says-australia-economy-will-suffer-without-car-makers-ford-holden-and-toyota/story-fnkgdhrc-1226802590442

On second thoughts that might be too difficult, so here's a link to the legislation where you should be able to work out what constitutes a legal immigrant or an illegal immigrant. http://www.comlaw.gov.au/

Or you could try being smart and looking at the heading of this thread.

They are illegal - acting against the laws of Australia - they are not refugees, refugees are being allowed into Australia direct from the camps outside the borders of their own countries. I understand your emotions, about starving refugees, but I and others have already posted correct information in this thread which you have judged with pathetic "creative" or "optimistic" remarks to the point where you've branded yourself as not worth listening to.

Ah maybe you were; that's the Communist credo

Go do your research and see whether you would get a cent of pension on that before waving the red rag.

No doubt some do when they have an agenda, but the agenda of the major political parties is to get accurate data so they formulate new strategies around that. They'd be drop kicks to set polling to say they were going to win by a landslide, be laughed at by the other party and follow that up by losing an election by a bigger margin. I'd have to say our political pollsters on both side are as smart as whips and leave corporate Australia in their dust.

which based on the latest book I read would mean going back about 400,000 years, to bones which predate the aboriginals.

My point was the Morgan Poll as represented by FT, if applied to the number of people who frequent this forum represented about 0.02% of a person, or about the depth of Facthunter's top layer of hair, so you couldn't even see his eyebrows to judge an expression one way or the other. I'm involved in polling from time to time for both political and industrial reasons, so I know what we look for in numbers of people polled, locations, implications, trends, policies, wishes etc. More importantly we set the questions very carefully because that quite often decides the outcome. And it's not set to just give us good news, particularly those of us who've studied the US Ford Edsel and Australian Commodore fiascos. As I understand it Morgans selected various areas of the community, and over time have refined that for greater accuracy, and there's nothing wrong with that for newspaper reporting and giving the trailing Party something to think about. I'm not that interested in whether Tony Abbott is doing well or doing badly at the present time; it's still a bit too early in terms of budget effect to define, and a lot of people are just making judgements off the daily media, which you can tell by reading this thread. I will be critical of the government if it doesn't address post Mining and post Manufacturing living standards for all Australians sooner rather than too later.

He was an aboriginal who returned Captain Cooks favour of planting the British flag on Australian soil and claimed Australia for Britain. Birnum Birnum landed on the coast of Britain, planted the Aboriginal flag on British soil and claimed Britain for Australia. He was unopposed by the British Defence Force. So based on equal legality the Aboriginal people now own Britain.

He was a brilliant guy

What's creative about that Methusla?

Morgan polling is more reliable than some of the others who just phone 250 people, however no serious Party or Corporate research would rely on those figures. There were 14,765,883 million people enrolled to vote at September 30 last year according to the AEC, and the 2527 Morgan polled represents 0.0171%.

The answer to the first part appears to be based on, as far as I can see with a quick glance: (a) what we can afford (because once they are in, they get medical benefits, pensions etc even though they have never paid taxes in Australia, this is offset by agreements with some countries that the originating country where pensions are paid by that country, where the person paid his taxes. So, for example Italian immigration could be raised because we can afford more. (b) how it will affect unemployment In the City of Greater Dandenong we have 153 Nationalities, so not too many countries have been excluded. All have worked out well except for two ethnic groups which aren't necessary to discuss on this thread. The answer to the second part I haven't checked formally, but for anyone seriously interested, Federal support will probably be spelled out on the Immigration site where I got the earlier statistics, then there is State support, which includes low cost housing, then there is local government support, which includes some free housing, a number of support services such as English training schools, and Grants. For example one group in Dandenong were given a Grant of $45,000.00 to teach their members how to read a Melway street directory. On top of that they receive assistance from charity groups and volunteers. So while the Federal income figures someone quoted a few pages ago look rather meagre, they are augmented by support worth many thousands of dollars per year, and the experience I've had here in Dandenong is that they can quickly be seen in nice new clothes, looking clean, neat and tidy, and living in normal homes which they also keep neat clean and tidy, something I can't say for fourth generation Australians sucking on pot with hair down to their asses and body odour which kills the fleas, living in houses with peeling paint and grass up to your waist. They are also able to get a reasonable car quickly, and get their kids into the local schools, and armed with all of this infrastructure they seem to be quickly getting jobs and contributing to the country.

Although you only alluded to a Morgan Poll rather than just coming out and telling us, the advantage in having a source is that people can check it for themselves. What you left off your post, which makes a big difference is the following paragraph "This multi-mode Morgan Poll on voting intention was conducted over the last two weekends (January 4/5 & 11/12, 2014) with an Australia-wide cross-section of 2,527 Australian electors aged 18+." 2,527 out of millions of voters is not serious polling a party needs to take action on. Both major Parties would be polling thousands more than that as we speak, and can usually predict an election result several weeks out, even though they publicly will be whistling past the graveyard to the very end.

You actually quoted me, but apparently didn't read or didn't comprehend what I said in lines 6 and 7 "A genuine refugee who manages to walk his family to his border and is fed by the UN is regularly accepted by Australia after suitable checks We never read too much about these genuine immigrants in the newspapers because they are just integrating and enjoying their new life." Here are three sources where you can see the figures for yourself http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/pdf/report-on-migration-program-2012-13.pdf http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/australia_offshore_humanitarian_prog_2012-13.pdf As for your last line, what's your point?; Did you want me to say Afghanistan has had a clean out of the Taliban, but some people who may or may not be Taliban, may or may not be killing people who may or may not have been interpreters, and who may or may not have been working for the coalition forces?

Really, putting a "psychopath" next to a person's name not personal? And 40% of us are psychopaths?