Options

Welfare heaven beckons for another batch we don't need

13»

Comments

  • Options
    Erasmus SleepsErasmus Sleeps Posts: 59
    Forum Member
    Legal as defined by who? The nation's government or international law? Since you say a nation can enact any law I assume you think international laws have no bearing on how a nation should act, making your proviso through legal means worthless as a nation can make whatever it wants to do legal.

    The right of o sovereign nation to enact laws for the benefit of its citizens trumps so called international law in my eyes, who makes these so called international laws, certainly not the UN as they are not an elected assembly with the enshrined right ceded to them by the sovereign nations of the world to make or enact laws on an international basis, the UN is no better than a parochial community council.

    It's history is littered with failure and often staffed by clueless morons, need I remind the forum of the past failures such as Bosnia, Iraq ect, so for them to get uppity about unfound allegations regarding human right abuses by Australia is frankly laughable.
  • Options
    Mark_Jones9Mark_Jones9 Posts: 12,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    The right of o sovereign nation to enact laws for the benefit of its citizens trumps so called international law in my eyes, who makes these so called international laws, certainly not the UN as they are not an elected assembly with the enshrined right ceded to them by the sovereign nations of the world to make or enact laws on an international basis, the UN is no better than a parochial community council.

    It's history is littered with failure and often staffed by clueless morons, need I remind the forum of the past failures such as Bosnia, Iraq ect, so for them to get uppity about unfound allegations regarding human right abuses by Australia is frankly laughable.
    The victors of the second world war created the current international law. The UN conventions.
    The UN has investigated Australia and found Australia guilty of human rights violations. Australia is in breach of international law.
  • Options
    mickmarsmickmars Posts: 7,438
    Forum Member
    The victors of the second world war created the current international law. The UN conventions.
    The UN has investigated Australia and found Australia guilty of human rights violations. Australia is in breach of international law.

    Yes,but on the plus side,they don't have bogus refugees sucking the welfare system dry and driving the nationals out of their minds.

    The UK should follow Australias brilliant example
  • Options
    sturcolsturcol Posts: 635
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Has there ever been a thread on these forums regarding immigration/asylum seekers/refugee`s that hasn`t included someone mentioning racism ? It`s always dredged up and kills any sensible debate. It is used in the wrong context and that is why you never get an honest discussion on the subject. It also undermines genuine victims of racism.


    Probably not. The other thing that you NEVER hear from those in favour of the swamping we receive is what limit they would set, if any, to the number of immigrants we should take in this country.

    We know that there is no limit to the number that can come here from the EU, hence the government's sensible plan to try and get control of this, but what about those from outside the EU? Again, the government has tried (and failed) to limit numbers.

    There must, surely, be a limit to how many people we can take in this country and I would say that we already have enough for the time being.
  • Options
    sturcolsturcol Posts: 635
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It is a nations sovereign right to enact any law to deter or encourage migration to their nation, if a nation chooses to deter through legal means to disencourage immigration then that's their right.

    Not if that nation belongs to the EU. Then it is the right of unelected foreigners to dictate to us how many other foreigners we should allow in and "how many" is limitless in terms of those coming in from EU countries.
  • Options
    sturcolsturcol Posts: 635
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Jol44 wrote: »
    I thought this was about yet another royal baby.

    No you didn't, you just thought you'd have another pathetic, snide little dig.
  • Options
    MorlockMorlock Posts: 3,211
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Australia will not take asylum seekers that don't arrive by plane.

    What a load of rubbish.
    They still accept asylum seekers as long as they don't arrive illegally by boat. It has saved lives.

    Where do you get the idea from that Australia does not accept asylum seekers arriving by boat?
  • Options
    warlordwarlord Posts: 3,292
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The victors of the second world war created the current international law. The UN conventions.
    unfortunately they failed to realise that de-colonization would create a large number of impoverished dictatorships. Nor did they foresee the resurgence of islam. If they had known these things, it is highly unlikely that they would have encouraged the population of the third world to swamp the Western democracies.
    The UN has investigated Australia and found Australia guilty of human rights violations. Australia is in breach of international law.

    ...and nobody gives a sh*t
Sign In or Register to comment.