Iran...running out of clock...

[mistermack]

They can leave if they agree to go back to their country of origin.

And yes, I know that may be rather risky.

Most of those people travel through perfectly safe countries to get to Australia.
We have the same going on here. They get to France, but claim asylum in Britain.

It should be a general rule that if you arrived from a safe country, you automatically don't qualify.

They didn't set up the asylum system for people coming from safe countries.

I would say that the percentage of bogus seekers is near enough 100 these days.
And it's the bogus ones who make life hard for the genuine ones. Fuck em.

[Hermit]

I would say that the percentage of bogus seekers is near enough 100 these days.

The Australian Immigration department is in charge of managing asylum seekers. Per government directives it makes it as difficult as possible for them to judged as bona fide refugees. The news just in is that 94% of all asylum seekers detained at the Manus Island prison were determined as genuine asylum seekers.

[mistermack]

I would say that the percentage of bogus seekers is near enough 100 these days.

The Australian Immigration department is in charge of managing asylum seekers. Per government directives it makes it as difficult as possible for them to judged as bona fide refugees. The news just in is that 94% of all asylum seekers detained at the Manus Island prison were determined as genuine asylum seekers.

That's pretty meaningless.
Who determined that, and who gets the benefit of the doubt?
It's pretty hard to prove a negative, as is often said on this site.
Especially when people are lying their heads off. How do you go about disproving an asylum claim? When the people have been intensively rehearsed in what to say by the traffickers.

If it was up to you to PROVE that you were genuine, you would be getting the opposite result.

[pErvinalia]

They can leave if they agree to go back to their country of origin.

And yes, I know that may be rather risky.

Most of those people travel through perfectly safe countries to get to Australia.
We have the same going on here. They get to France, but claim asylum in Britain.

It should be a general rule that if you arrived from a safe country, you automatically don't qualify.

They didn't set up the asylum system for people coming from safe countries.

I would say that the percentage of bogus seekers is near enough 100 these days.
And it's the bogus ones who make life hard for the genuine ones. Fuck em.

I say, without a shadow of a doubt, that you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. As usual. You've been schooled in these issues before. Like Seth, you are incapable of learning.

[pErvinalia]

I would say that the percentage of bogus seekers is near enough 100 these days.

The Australian Immigration department is in charge of managing asylum seekers. Per government directives it makes it as difficult as possible for them to judged as bona fide refugees. The news just in is that 94% of all asylum seekers detained at the Manus Island prison were determined as genuine asylum seekers.

That's pretty meaningless.
Who determined that, and who gets the benefit of the doubt?

Apparently you can't even read simple English.

[mistermack]

You never back up your claims with any reasoning, do you? It's just empty claims.

I've seen a better standard of comment from little children.

[pErvinalia]

I've shown u the data before. Hermit just did it again. Yet u, who knows absolutely nothing about these people, thinks he knows more than the people who actually interviewed and investigated them. You're what's called a Monday quarterback. You're like this in every fucken thread. You're an old bigotted opinionated idiot. You're an embarrassment to rationality.

[pErvinalia]

I apologise for being nasty, but fuck, your shit pollutes so many potentially intelligent threads. It's an embarrassment for a rationalist site.

[Hermit]

I would say that the percentage of bogus seekers is near enough 100 these days.

The Australian Immigration department is in charge of managing asylum seekers. Per government directives it makes it as difficult as possible for them to judged as bona fide refugees. The news just in is that 94% of all asylum seekers detained at the Manus Island prison were determined as genuine asylum seekers.

That's pretty meaningless.
Who determined that, and who gets the benefit of the doubt?
It's pretty hard to prove a negative, as is often said on this site.

The determination is made using rules set up by the Australian immigration department, and the rules are that asylum seekers must prove that they are not just economic refugees. The government does not need to prove the negative. The asylum seeker does.

[mistermack]

I've shown u the data before. Hermit just did it again. Yet u, who knows absolutely nothing about these people, thinks he knows more than the people who actually interviewed and investigated them. You're what's called a Monday quarterback. You're like this in every fucken thread. You're an old bigotted opinionated idiot. You're an embarrassment to rationality.

I've seen no link from Hermit.
And I don't take your comments as true without support, because, you have proved over and over again, that you are a dumb cunt.

[pErvinalia]

Try using Google, FFS, before opening your hole.

[mistermack]

Try using Google, FFS, before opening your hole.

Why should I use google, every time you make an unsubstantiated claim?

As far as I'm concerned, your posts are bollocks, until proven otherwise.
If you can't get onto google yourself, don't just make it up.

[pErvinalia]

You are the one claiming 100% of them aren't refugees. You can't even read your own words, let alone other's.

[Hermit]

I've shown u the data before. Hermit just did it again. Yet u, who knows absolutely nothing about these people, thinks he knows more than the people who actually interviewed and investigated them. You're what's called a Monday quarterback. You're like this in every fucken thread. You're an old bigotted opinionated idiot. You're an embarrassment to rationality.

I've seen no link from Hermit.

I replied to this claim of yours:

I would say that the percentage of bogus seekers is near enough 100 these days.

Linkie?

[mistermack]

You are the one claiming 100% of them aren't refugees. You can't even read your own words, let alone other's.

I made it clear that that was my opinion. I don't expect people to take it as an established fact.
I gave reasons why i thought that. You can't be bothered to address the reasoning.

I'll try again. Why should someone who passes through safe countries without stopping be treated as "in fear of their lives" ?

I said that they should automatically fail in their claim. And that takes the percentage up to a very high level.

See, I support my opinions with argument. You don't, and you ignore any argument that doesn't fit your preconceptions. But the facts don't go away.

edit : I would add to that, that if someone IGNORES safe countries, and travels PAST them, on to Australia, that should also disqualify them in the same way.
If you ignore safety next door, and travel thousands of miles to a rich country, your motives should be obvious to anyone who has a genuinely open mind. And Hermit, that is my reasoning. I said "I would say" and that is why I would say it.