The Big List of Reasons Why You’re Wrong About Asylum Seekers

The Big List of Reasons Why You’re Wrong About Asylum Seekers



If you listen to the naysayers, and there are many who frequently say nay, there are roughly four things that have the capacity to end the world. Those are the gays, nuclear weapons, Amy Winehouse and asylum seekers.

There. I said it.

And I wonder whether they still believed it yesterday when a boat carrying some 80-100 refugees was smashed on to the rocks in churning seas at Christmas Island, like it was some kind of horrific metaphor for the welcome we extend them if they do happen to make it to shore. Those who have politicised the plight of asylum seekers, who claimed previously that we have offered the ‘red carpet’ to these folk have yet to clarify their remarks in the wake of the tragedy yesterday.

Well, those at the top of the tree anyhow. If you’re like me and you hate yourself, then you were probably listening to talkback radio and the views of those safely ensconced in their suburban lifestyles telling us we should ‘send them back’ and that ‘they got what they deserved’. Because apparently asylum seekers are broken Christmas fob watches with return policies.

The arguments some people use to solidify mass ignorance, are, however a little bit wrong. Or a lot wrong, depending on your ability to estimate spatial entities. Helpfully, I have compiled a little list of the most common arguments against asylum seekers which I am calling ‘The Big List of Reasons You’re Wrong About Asylum Seekers’.

1. They’re illegal! Aha, our criminal justice system will protect our prejudice!

I don’t quite know how to put this, so I’m going to go with a simple: no. They’re not illegal. They’re not any more illegal than that moustache you grew ironically last October. Both Australian and International Law allows those seeking asylum from persecution in their countries to seek it. That includes on our shores. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also backs this up. And yes, they’re still allowed to seek asylum if they have no documents. Now, what you’re referring to as ‘illegals’ are people who overstay their Visas. There are thousands of these, mostly people from Western Countries who got sozzled in a backpacker bar and missed their connection flight back to Oxford.

2. They’re queue jumpers, look at them deftly skipping that queue!

I want you to show me, on a map of the world, where this queue is. Even if there was a queue, you’re missing the point. Let me put it this way. If you’re being chased by your worst nightmare – mine would be spandex bike shorts – and that nightmare can or will kill you, where do you run? Maybe you have two options. In one you have to cross many borders before finally boarding a boat that isn’t really a boat and hoping that maybe it’ll hold together until you get to a country that will probably lock you up when you get there anyway. The other option is to sit patiently in a queue, like you would at a bank before making a withdrawal. Except at the bank you won’t die. You see, in the queue you will get caught and persecuted and shot and killed or any combination of the above. You might die on a boat too, but what choice do you have? It’s a moot point anyway as in places like Iraq and Iran, where most of yesterday’s asylum seekers were from, Australia has no diplomatic representation and there is no standard queue to wait patiently in. What would you do?

3. But they’re just boat people!

Boat people? Sounds like a race of creatures that look predominantly like boats. This phrase is terribly disingenuous. They’re not boat people, they’re fleeing from horrific persecution and terrible lives. Show some respect.

4. Well, what if they come and steal our jobs?

You mean the jobs that you don’t want to do? In any case, accepting people into this country who want to work to make a better life for them and their families is good for the economy. They create demand, they will shop, they will spend money on other industries. Some will go on to study to be doctors like the great Victor Chang, others will pack fruit at the local markets. Research has shown the benefit to the US economy of all ‘illegal’ immigrants is some $800 billion. So, even if you don’t have a heart, the economic windfalls of granting asylum are robust to say the least.

5. Well, they won’t work, they’ll just sit on welfare and drain our resources.

There is absolutely no evidence to suggest this has happened, or will happen. There will be some, as there are in our own ‘culture’ where your cousin Ted spends too much time gurgling bong water and adjusting his crotch throughout the day.

6. We take too many refugees anyway, why let even more in?

I have a feeling that you would still say this when we take just one refugee. As it turns out, Australia takes about one refugee for every 1600 people. In Britain that number is one for every 600 and in Tanzania – the beacon of the developed world *cough* – they take one for every 75. These figures are from the turn of the 21st Century. And that’s all refugees – not just those who come by boat. We took fewer refugees this year than there were residents in my home shire – 14,000. And really people, I grew up in the sticks.

7. But they’re all Muslims!

Quick, everybody hide! Seriously, what the hell is your point? If what you really meant to say was ‘they’re all terrorists’ you are also wrong. The amount of refugees sent home due to character references, out of the 14,000 odd we take each year, is almost in the single digits. Are there bad apples? Yes. There were bad apples in my Year 12 class as well. No, really, some of those people were dicks.

8. If we just stopped the boats tragedies like this wouldn’t happen.

Equivalent: If we stopped the murderers we would have no more murders. Or: Why false logic has ripped our hearts out. First, those aren’t just boats. There are people on them. Those people need a home safe from danger. We can give them that. Secondly, if you manage to stop the boats then I also have a Rancor in my basement that needs feeding.

9. “If people are stupid enough to risk their lives in leaky boats it’s not my problem.”

That’s an actual comment on a news website. I truly think my cat understands more about this issue than this person does. And my cat tried to eat its dinner through an unopened can.

10. They should shut the back door to Australia and make them catch planes.

Please see all arguments above.

Disclaimer: I am not a refugee. I once sailed on a boat but it was quite nice and I did it on a lake and there was only a slight breeze. I have lived a fairly good life. I’ve never wanted for anything and my family has taught me the value of a ‘fair go’ and hard work. Once, I stood on a nail. It hurt a lot, but that is probably the most physical pain I have ever been in. The greatest threat to my life as a child was that nail in that sandpit. Today, it is driving through the city to get to my friend’s house because I am a bad driver and changing lanes scares me.

I will leave this country one day, on a plane, to go work overseas because I can. And I will probably spend a lot of my money on alcohol and cigarettes while pretending I am being very cultured. This is not the case for refugees who are forced to flee heart-stopping terror in their own countries in search of a better place. Australia could be that better place if we opened our hearts and our eyes. Currently, we can sit back and watch a boat of asylum seekers break apart on the rocks and admonish them for being silly. But we don’t know the exact kind of horror they have had to flee. We will never know it and therefore it is very easy for us not to care, or to send them back with the receipt.

Granting asylum to those desperate is not going to change the way you live your life. It might enhance our culture, like immigrants did in the decades before us, and it might boost our economy but you’re more than welcome to continue whatever it is that you were doing, and have been doing, for the decades these asylum seekers have been turning up in the tiny numbers that they do.

Problem solved.

(Source)

64 thoughts on “The Big List of Reasons Why You’re Wrong About Asylum Seekers

  1. There’s a new emerging one you need to hit as well: If they could get to Indonesia, they’re safe there. Unless they’re coming directly to Australia, they’re queue jumping.

    Would love a good answer on that one, thanks.

    • 1. There is no “queue”.

      2. Indonesia is not “safe” unless you want to languish for years in a camp. Asylum seekers are not going to want to go to a dangerous place with no future.

      “In Iraq and Afghanistan, there are no queues for people to jump. Australia has no diplomatic representation in these countries and supports the International coalition of nations who continue to oppose these regimes and support sanctions against them. Therefore, there is no standard refugee process where people wait in line to have their applications considered. ”

      – Debunking the Myths about Asylum Seekers (Edmund Rice Centre for Justice & Community Education)

    • Plus a lot of the asylum seekers coming by boat are fleeing chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan. Last time I checked Indonesia did not have troops in either of those countries. So apart from the fact that there’s no “queue”, you could ask why it’s okay for them to “queue jump” to Indonesia (who did not send troops to the boat peoples’ countries of origin) as long as they’re not “queue jumping” to Australia, (who did contribute to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).

    • As far as this queue jumping nonsense you all keep referring to, there is no such thing. For there to be queue jumping, there has to be a queue. Now listen very carefully. In order for there to be a queue, there has to be registration at an Australian Embassy or some other institution representing Australia. In many of these countries and many of these small towns and villages, THERE IS NOT SEMBLANCE OF AN AUSTRALIAN EMBASSY! Hence people can not register to join this supposed queue you speak of. Hence, there is not queue, therefore there is no queue jumping. There is only the little money they have, the few possessions they keep and their lives. Now for the love of ice-cream, stop crapping on about queue jumping!!!!

  2. Sometimes when I’ve read your entries, along the top somewhere it names the author of the piece. I don’t see that this time, but you know who you are. That was perhaps the best written entry I’ve seen on this site. It was heartfelt, funny at appropriate times, and held up the backwards thinking of the racists and other ignorant people who just don’t know the facts to show just how many holes are in their arguments.

    Part of me wishes I wouldn’t have seen that picture. Part of me is disgusted with myself that I would feel that way. Everyone in Australia (the whole world actually) should have to see that. Is empathy so dead in the world, that you can’t look at a picture of that kind of human tragedy and misery and not understand that it could have been you — that it’s only by a blessing of luck that you’re born into a country where you have so many opportunities, so many freedoms and privilages? If people could just close their eyes for a minute, and picture a world in which they are a minority race in a country boiling in civil war, where your children may disappear to be child soldiers, or kidnapped and forced into the sex trade. And even if you can escape all those horrors, if you can avoid being shot in the course of your everyday life, then sometimes, like the sick situation a few years back where American troops raped and then killed a young girl and set her family on fire — sometimes the good guys aren’t the good guys.

    I have the greatest respect for these people. They love their families so much, want to protect them so much… they’re willing to step out of danger into equal danger, in the hope that what lies at the end of such a harrowing journey is a better life. They leave behind everything they know, everyone they know. I cannot begin to understand that kind of desperation, grief or loss. And obviously, neither can the racists.

    As I said before, touching entry. I look forward to reading more like this.

    • You’d THINK it would shut a few people up, but I’m almost certain that it won’t. So many people are not capable of recognising these people as human, and until they do that, they don’t have any capacity for empathy.

  3. “I will leave this country one day, on a plane”

    Goodbye.

    “Granting asylum to those desperate is not going to change the way you live your life.”

    Unless they kill you.

    A drunk/drugged-fucked and/or demented African “refugee” (well known to the local police) hit me in the face and threatened to cut my throat, when I tried to stop him shoplifting.

    What a contribution he makes to our lives.

  4. i wonder how many of these people again ‘asylum seekers’ and ‘muslims’ or whatever know/bother to remmerb that it was the good old united states of america, that asked ahmad shah massoud -the leader of the northern allaicne ( n.alliance= the mujhadeen taht badned togther to fight AGAINST the taliban form taking afghanistan over) to surrender to the taliban? it was a cia agent called robin raphael. if america had never funded the taliban for watever idiotic reasons; if america had never forced massoud to surrender; afghanistan would be a decent country today.
    and i wonder how mnay people remmebr that it was the west; once again taht handed saddam hussein WMD during the iran-iraq war; then turned around and gave iran WMD.. they were hoping iran and iraq wuld blow each other up.
    also indonesia is not somehwehre you would ever go seeking the good life.
    seriously
    they have an applaing huma rights situation in that country.

    was there this much fuss during the war in ‘nam?
    serislu these people are so desperate to leave thier countries which have been shvoed into turmoil by a bag of dirty poltiics and tricks by western countries are going to come here and work alot harder then the typcial aussie bogan thats so against them

  5. Rick says: “You’re going to base your entire opposition to asylum seekers one dude who punched you?”

    No, my “entire” opposition isn’t based on any one thing.

    Terror AUSTRALIS!!! says: “–And a gay man tried to grope me… ”

    Must have been a dimly lit bar. At closing time.

    “Your point is Shockaholic?”

    The point is all you PC people try to paint a rosy-cheeked Hallmark Card vision of refugees and immigrants, and conveniently ignore all the problems they create.

    “Stop molesting little boys”

    Pathetic.

    Why Why says: “I’m sure no white Australian has ever been under the influence of drugs or alcohol or has ever hit anyone in the face or stabbed anyone.”

    I’m sure they have. But they were born here.
    The guy who hit me *never* could have, if he’d remained in the country he was born in.
    That crime could *never* have occurred.

    M-Dawg!! says: “I was responding to ‘shockadelic’ who is a white supremacist twat.”

    Who I ignore and don’t waste my time on, by constantly wasting my time not ignoring him.

    redic says: “if america had never forced massoud to surrender; afghanistan would be a decent country today.”

    Who cares?

    “was there this much fuss during the war in ‘nam?”

    Most Vietnamese ‘refugees’ arrived several years after the war ended.
    And yes, there was a lot of fuss.

    “these people are so desperate to leave thier countries which have been shvoed into turmoil by a bag of dirty poltiics and tricks by *western countries* are going to come here and….”

    consciously or unconsciously despise White people, the people who ‘fucked them over’.

    • Shockadelic:”I’m sure they have. But they were born here.”
      Still makes your anti-immigration argument on the basis of a propensity to crime a complete and utter logic fail. That particular crime could never have occurred, but others committed by white Australians have and continue to do so. A lack of immigrants doesn’t equal a lack of crime.

  6. “Rick says: “You’re going to base your entire opposition to asylum seekers one dude who punched you?”

    No, my “entire” opposition isn’t based on any one thing.”

    Yeah it generally is. People who aren’t white have no right to be here. Right?

    “The point is all you PC people try to paint a rosy-cheeked Hallmark Card vision of refugees and immigrants, and conveniently ignore all the problems they create.”

    Not at all. We just don’t choose to attribute various forms of antisocial behaviour to certain races of people.

    You can choose to take an entirely negative view of certain races of people based on the actions of a minority of them, or you can choose to take an entirely positive view based on the actions of the majority of them. Or, like us, you can join in and oppose the negative actions and praise and encourage the positive actions. If you choose to focus on all the negatives, it can work to create a self-fulfilling prophecy as marginalised groups in Australia begin to see themselves as hated members of our community while we attribute the actions of those like them to them.

    “I’m sure they have. But they were born here.
    The guy who hit me *never* could have, if he’d remained in the country he was born in.
    That crime could *never* have occurred.”

    How do you know he wasn’t born here? Maybe his family migrated here over 30 or 40 years ago, maybe even before you were born. I get it – you wish non-whites had NEVER come here in the first place. But they did so you need to move on. And for the record, Australia has NEVER been 100% white.

    “Most Vietnamese ‘refugees’ arrived several years after the war ended.”

    You do realise that the civil war in Sri Lanka has ended, right?

    “consciously or unconsciously despise White people, the people who ‘fucked them over’.”

    Consciously or unconsciously? Are you serious? Do you not think that a great majority of them would be happy to be here and appreciative of our government and people for allowing them to stay here? Do you honestly assume that every person who comes here from a conflict-ridden country hates white people? Fuck…

  7. fantastic blog antibogan.

    truly, shockadelic you have posted one of THE most ignorant comments i have ever seen.

    “I’m sure they have. But they were born here.
    The guy who hit me *never* could have, if he’d remained in the country he was born in.
    That crime could *never* have occurred.”

    Are you serious? Tell me you are. Please, tell me!
    You know, if British settlers had remained where they were and had not discovered Australia, Aboriginals wouldn’t have experienced the turmoil the British brought to them.

  8. vaderandprowler said “truly, shockadelic you have posted one of THE most ignorant comments i have ever seen.”

    Do you actually know what the word “ignorant” means.
    It’s not a synonym for “logical”.
    Yes, if the British hadn’t settled here, Aborigines wouldn’t have met them.

    That’s right.
    What’s your point?
    That doesn’t *refute* what I said. It confirms it.
    People who aren’t here can’t hurt us (Image of drooling mental patient in straitjacket pops into head).

    We have no control over events that happened hundreds of years ago.
    We *do* have control over today.

    Why Why said “Still makes your anti-immigration argument on the basis of a propensity to crime a complete and utter logic fail.”

    My opposition isn’t based on that.

    “That particular crime could never have occurred,”

    That’s right.

    “but others committed by white Australians have and continue to do so.”

    Yes, but those people were already here.
    We didn’t *enable* their presence in the country. They were born here.
    Not much you can do about that, except punish them.

    “A lack of immigrants doesn’t equal a lack of crime.”

    Never said it did.
    It does mean a lack of crime by people who would not otherwise be here.
    Those people are being brought *into* the country, they aren’t simply “here”.

    theantibogan said “People who aren’t white have no right to be here. Right?”

    No. People who aren’t born here have no right to be here.

    “We just don’t choose to attribute various forms of antisocial behaviour to certain races of people.”

    Neither do I.
    I estimate the probability of criminal behaviour, based on past observation.

    “Or, like us, you can join in and oppose the negative actions and praise and encourage the positive actions.”

    Or you can just honestly accept people’s negative/positive realities and stop wishing you could change them.

    “If you choose to focus on all the negatives, it can work to create a self-fulfilling prophecy as marginalised groups in Australia begin to see themselves as hated members of our community”

    Nobody else is responsible for your self-image.

    “How do you know he wasn’t born here? Maybe his family migrated here over 30 or 40 years ago, maybe even before you were born.”

    His accent.
    The fact it was common knowledge in the neighbourhood.

    “I get it – you wish non-whites had NEVER come here in the first place. But they did so you need to move on.”

    They don’t need to *keep* coming here.
    Past = beyond our control
    Present/Future = under our control

    “And for the record, Australia has NEVER been 100% white.”

    For the record: Duh!
    *Immigrants* were almost 100% White for most of our history.
    Even today 90% of Australians are White.
    It is not evil to have a White population.
    It’s not a ‘problem’ that needs ‘fixing’.
    It’s not a ‘sickness’ that needs ‘treatment’.

    “You do realise that the civil war in Sri Lanka has ended, right?’

    So why are they coming here?
    What are they ‘fleeing’ from?

    “Consciously or unconsciously? Are you serious? Do you not think that a great majority of them would be happy to be here and appreciative of our government and people for allowing them to stay here? Do you honestly assume that every person who comes here from a conflict-ridden country hates white people? Fuck…”

    Obviously, you’re not familiar with the word “unconsciously”.

    • “theantibogan said “People who aren’t white have no right to be here. Right?”

      No. People who aren’t born here have no right to be here.”

      Bullshit. Your opinion. As for people born here – they aren’t necessarily white. I’m sure you’ve now acknowledged this.

      “Neither do I.
      I estimate the probability of criminal behaviour, based on past observation.”

      What a stupid, blinded thing to do. You not only fail to acknowledge the varying factors contributing to non-white crime within Australia, but you fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of white people that moved here in the first place were fucking convicts!

      “Or you can just honestly accept people’s negative/positive realities and stop wishing you could change them.”

      That’s crap. Negative/positive realities? Fucking idiot. Give a person healthcare, financial support, housing, education, employment – do you think they will break into your house and steal your flatscreen? Give a person a couple of beers and they will hit a woman. There are factors contributing to all kinds of crime and they ARE NOT attributed to the ethnicity of that person.

      “Nobody else is responsible for your self-image.”

      Bullshit. Why don’t you ask the boy who was abused by his father since he was two, and bullied by his peers until he dropped out of school in Year 9. You don’t think anyone else has contributed to his self-image?

      “His accent.”

      Your accent is formed by the people you grow up with and the people that teach and speak to you.

      “They don’t need to *keep* coming here.
      Past = beyond our control
      Present/Future = under our control”

      You’ve failed to acknowledge that immigration solves more problems than it creates. And once again, I’ll refer to the political parties that have pushed for a termination of all immigration. They have failed to attract more than 2% of the popular vote.

      “Even today 90% of Australians are White.”

      Really? Got statistics for that one?

      “It is not evil to have a White population.”

      Who said it was?

      “It’s not a ‘problem’ that needs ‘fixing’.”

      There are problems that DO need fixing, and immigration addresses those problems.

      “So why are they coming here?
      What are they ‘fleeing’ from?”

      You’re joking right?

      “Obviously, you’re not familiar with the word “unconsciously”.”

      Why do you say that? I was attacking your view that all non-whites hate whites, whether they realise it or not.

    • Wait, wait, wait. So Shockaholic is saying it’s OKAY if a guy beats him up, holds a knife to his throat and threatens his life IF HE WAS BORN HERE, but it’s NOT okay for someone to do that if they’re an immigrant.

      Well that’s okay then. I’ll take that to congress.

  9. No, “anti-bogan”, bringing in foreign groups NEVER helps with any problems in your own country, and the problems in Australia (until a very short time ago) where utterly poultry compared to the glaring and severe problems of the rest of the world.

    NO people, NO nation, throughout the entirety of human history would have claimed that replacing themselves with another population would help their society or their problems.

    You have the quite the nerve debating population statistics with anyone either, when YOU yourself flit between trying to diminish the concerns of Australians about their country and future by claiming that “only 100,000 migrants” arrive here each year, and that Australia’s not being affected by this…AND…delightedly claiming that MOST of the population is now from overseas or else children of recent arrivals from overseas…AND by your subscription to the multicult agenda AIMING for the reduction of the White Australian population to minority status in their own country through endless immigration of other races, and beyond that, our elimination!

    The “asylum seeker” issue is relatively small potatoes compared to the problem of hundreds of thousands of immigrants arriving here per annum.
    However, be it one hundred, or ten thousand, refugees arriving here each year, it adds up…and it is insane to imagine that a nation can preserve it’s integrity under the pressure of continued alien intrusion.
    If you had a barrel of water and continued pouring vinegar into, you will eventually have nothing but a barrel of bitter vinegar.

    There have been NO great benefits bought to Australia by foreigners.
    Continued massive influx of foreigners, as well, can ONLY be detrimental to Australia.

    Australia was one of the few countries in the world that was well up highers, and light years ahead of the rest.
    No, there has never been anything wrong, and there IS nothing so drastically wrong with (real) Australia…that requires our racial replacement as the only viable option.

    With these boat people, they should fix their OWN societies and nations…if they feel they must leave and can get to Indonesia, the yes, they SHOULD stay there!
    As ‘Anon’ put to you at the beginning!
    No, Indonesia won’t have them.
    Are they called “bigots’, “racists”, or “ignorant xenophobes” for doing so?
    NO, only dementedly self-destructive White liberals actively invite their own racial and social devestation, AND criticise their own countrymen who realise the insanity of this!

    If not Indonesia, then why not Saudi Arabia or the U.A.E? Co-religionists of these “asylum seekers” AND tremendously wealthy to boot!

    No, all roads must lead West, symbolically in the case of Australia, but any sane person knows what I mean.
    More’s the point, all roads for immigrants and refugees lead to WHITE countries, which power elites want to destroy, and spite filled, traitorous liberals want to help them do so.

    It was obvious that the media and liberals would go into a frenzy of stage-managed furore and “grief” over this boat-wreck and loss of life.
    What happened though, is NOT, at all, Australia’s fault!

    Nor is it the obligation of Australians to allow people in here, to our growing detriment, and eventual destruction!

    • Until you realise how little the opinions of Scott Pengilly matter, I doubt anyone will want to engage with you. Everything you’ve said is YOUR OPINION.

      As for your comment about boat people having to ‘fix their own societies’ – I’ll let you know when I finish shaking my head.

    • Unless you’re Aboriginal, you’re ALL children of immigrants, you ignoramous. There is no such thing as a pure-white Australian! What the hell are you talking about with the whole;

      “NO people, NO nation, throughout the entirety of human history would have claimed that replacing themselves with another population would help their society or their problems.”

      Does that mean the indigenous population of Australia thought that the white settlers were a good thing for their country? They came and colonised it anyway, and now look at us?

      “There have been NO great benefits bought to Australia by foreigners.” Uh, I’m pretty sure we brought you pizza and pasta, guy.

      And before you say anything else about immigrants not contributing to society, I’m pretty sure the immigrant health workers who wipe my dementia-suffering grandfather’s arse may have a few words to say about that.

  10. theantibogan said “People who aren’t white have no right to be here. Right?”

    “No. People who aren’t born here have no right to be here.”

    “Bullshit. Your opinion.”

    This is *not* my opinion!!
    Do you even understand the concepts of ‘sovereignty’ or ‘citizenship’?

    Only people *defined by the sovereign* as permitted to live here can live here.
    Full stop. End of story.
    Not “my opinion”. FACT.

    “but you fail to acknowledge that the vast majority of white people that moved here in the first place were fucking convicts!”

    Oh, so we do have a history after all.

    And why did those people come here?
    Because Britain said so. *Sovereignty*.

    “Give a person healthcare, financial support, housing, education, employment – do you think they will break into your house and steal your flatscreen?”

    Gimme, gimme, gimme.
    Why do we have to give, give, give?
    Why aren’t “they” responsible for their own wellbeing?

    And don’t Australians have those things and still commit crimes?
    If those things haven’t stopped Australians committing crimes, they won’t stop immigrants either.

    “You don’t think anyone else has contributed to his self-image?”

    Other people may ‘contribute’ to your self-image to the extent you allow them to.
    You can’t control what they have done.
    You control your reactions, perceptions, conclusions drawn.

    *You* decide that you’re a “worthless piece of shit”, not anybody else.
    You can also decide you’re *not* a “worthless piece of shit”, no matter how many times you’ve heard it.
    (which is why calling me names won’t make *any difference whatsoever*).

    “I’ll refer to the political parties that have pushed for a termination of all immigration. They have failed to attract more than 2% of the popular vote.”

    One Nation got 10%.
    Of course,with the mainstream media, the self-interests reactions of the major parties and the deliberate misrepresentations of nationalists perpetuated by people like yourself, the low votes aren’t surprising.
    But things can change.
    They are changing in Europe. The tea party in America may lead to change.
    It’s not something that will happen overnight,
    As I’ve said before, major political change never happens overniight,even when it appears to (revolitions,civil war).
    There;s always a long building-up period before anything noticeable happens.
    We are in that period now.

    “Even today 90% of Australians are White.”

    “Really? Got statistics for that one?”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia#Demography

    “Most of the estimated 22 million Australians are descended from colonial-era settlers and post-Federation immigrants from Europe, with almost 90% of the population being of European descent. For generations, the vast majority of immigrants came from the British Isles, and the people of Australia are still mainly of British or Irish ethnic origin.”

    Click to access v7n4_3price.pdf

    If you add up the ‘ethnic strengths’ (don’t worry, it will spoonfeed a definition for little baby) of Europeans listed here it adds up to around 89%.

    You will also see that the ethnic strength of “Anglo-Celt” has fallen from 89.82% in 1947 to 69.88% in 1999.
    A 22% drop from the 1947 figure (19.94 drop from 89.82 = 22% of 89.82).

    If Tibetans fell 22% in Tibet, would you claim nothing of significance has happened?

    “It is not evil to have a White population.”

    “Who said it was?”

    Oh, come on!
    It is the implicit justification of massive non-White immigration.
    And the explicit message of the anti-White academia of the last 4 decades, that no doubt influenced government policy.
    White people are blamed for every wrong in history.
    There is an implicit message permeating our society that there’s something intrinsically wring with being White, and changing the population is therefore necessary to prevent any further White crimes against humanity.

    “It’s not a ‘problem’ that needs ‘fixing’.”

    “There are problems that DO need fixing, and immigration addresses those problems.”

    They can be fixed with White immigrants just as easily.

    “So why are they coming here?
    What are they ‘fleeing’ from?”

    “You’re joking right?”

    War is over, if you want it.

    “Obviously, you’re not familiar with the word “unconsciously”.”

    “Why do you say that? I was attacking your view that all non-whites hate whites, whether they realise it or not.”

    Or not = unconsciously.

    Why wouldn’t people *unconsciously* resent people who created a better society than their own people created, a people who they have to crawl to and beg “Please Sir, let me in, let me in”.

    Yes, consciously they might say they’re grateful.

    Unconsciously they resent the fact that they must live in the society another people created, in order to get these benefits.
    The implication being their own people are incapable of the same advancement.

  11. Shockadelic: Why Why said “Still makes your anti-immigration argument on the basis of a propensity to crime a complete and utter logic fail.” My opposition isn’t based on that.

    A few paragraphs later…

    Shockadelic: “I estimate the probability of criminal behaviour, based on past observation.”

    Chalk up another logic fail to the king of debating.

    Shockadelic: “Do you even understand the concepts of ‘sovereignty’ or ‘citizenship’?
    You clearly don’t, as evidenced by:
    Shockadelic: “Only people *defined by the sovereign* as permitted to live here can live here.”
    And many of those “permitted to live here” were not born in Australia. Deal with it. It is your opinion that anyone not born in Australia doesn’t have the right to be here – opinion not supported (and in fact directly contradicted) by this country’s laws, put in place by democratically elected representatives of the people, in elections in which parties with views like yours sadly don’t seem to get a look in. Antibogan = right. Shockadelic = surprise, surprise, wrong. Again.

  12. Why Why says: “Chalk up another logic fail to the king of debating.”

    It was claimed erroneously that my “entire” opposition to immigration was based on crime, which it isn’t.

    “It is your opinion that anyone not born in Australia doesn’t have the right to be here – opinion not supported (and in fact directly contradicted) by this country’s *laws*”

    Laws =sovereignty.
    Fail yourself.
    You have permission to be in Australia only under the conditions stipulated in *law*.

    “Anyone not born in Australia” does not have the “right” to be here.
    They have the option of *applying* to be here, and we may or may not grant that application.

    “put in place by democratically elected representatives”

    Who require the assent of the *sovereign* to enact those laws.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Assent

    The sovereign has greater power than the elected parliament, or are you forgetting 1975?

    Why Why = wrong
    Shockadelic = surprise, surprise, right. Again.

    • Shockadelic: “It was claimed erroneously that my “entire” opposition to immigration was based on crime.”

      You’re a pathological liar as well as stupid to the nth degree. Not even a good attempt at lying either, as the post clearly states:

      Shockadelic: “Why Why said “Still makes your anti-immigration argument on the basis of a propensity to crime a complete and utter logic fail.” My opposition isn’t based on that.”

      So don’t try to bullshit your way out of this Shocky. It WAS NOT claimed that your ENTIRE opposition to immigration is based on a propensity to crime, just that you were making an argument against immigration based on a propensity to crime, and that said claim was based on a complete fail.

      And more hypocrisy from the self-proclaimed Realist who Doubts and claims to have an IQ of 123 based on an online test:

      Shockadelic: People who aren’t born here have no right to be here.

      A few posts later Shocky backtracks and admits that people who are not born here actually do

      Shockadelic: have permission to be in Australia only under the conditions stipulated in *law*.

      Fail, again, fuckwit, fail again.

      Shockadelic = surprise, surprise, right. Again.

      Still telling yourself that? Keep going, it’ll make you feel better.

    • Shockadelic: “The sovereign has greater power than the elected parliament, or are you forgetting 1975?”

      Unless the sovereign happens to be urging Australians not born in Australia that they do not have the right to be here, this bullshit babbling is merely an irrelevant attempt to change the topic. Fail yet again.

  13. Why Why says: “It WAS NOT claimed that your ENTIRE opposition to immigration is based on a propensity to crime”

    Rick says: December 22, 2010 at 11:17 am
    “You’re going to base your entire opposition to asylum seekers one dude who punched you?”

    Do you know what “based on” means?
    Need another English lesson.

    It means *fundamental*, essential, inherent.
    It doesn’t mean peripheral, supplementary, auxiliary.

    Nor does a claim that something isn’t fundemental mean that it’s completely irrelevant.

    Rick claimed I ‘base’ my ‘entire’ opposition on crime, which was then repeated by antibogan, and by you with the word ‘basis’.

    Crime is a factor, but not a fundamental one, or the ‘entire’ ‘basis’ for my opposition.

    “A few posts later Shocky backtracks and admits that people who are not born here actually do”

    Me: “only under the conditions stipulated in *law*.”

    Which requires an application which must be approved.

    Foreign citizens (do you even understand the concept of “citizen”?!!) don’t have the “right” to be in Australia unless you *go through this process*.

    That’s not a “right to be in Australia” if you’re born elsewhere.
    It’s a right to *apply* to be in Australia, which can be refused.

    “Unless the sovereign happens to be urging…..”

    It doesn’t matter whether the sovereign is doing or saying anything.
    The point is the “democratic laws” you refer to require his/her assent.
    The people of Western Australia voted to secede and the Queen just ignored it.

    Whether the people of Australia or their elected parliament think those laws are a good idea doesn’t change *who* has the ultimate power to decide.

    M-Dawg!! says: “Found this interesting..”

    I didn’t.

    Is this supposed to explain why there are boat people and why *we* are responsible for their wellbeing?

    It certainly isn’t White people causing that population growth.

    How about we do our bit and not overpopulate the one continent left that isn’t teeming with megacities.

  14. base up(on) something means:
    to ground something, such as one’s opinion, decision, or thinking, on someone or something; to found one’s ideas or attitude on something. (Upon is more formal and less commonly used than on.)

    Sentence example: I base my opinion on many, many facts. I based my opinion upon my own seasoned judgment.

    Population growth is currently at 2% in Australia. Population density is at 2.9 people per km squared, a slim chance for any megacity.

    ‘It certainly isn’t White people causing that population growth.’
    It is. 25% of Australians are foreign born, significantly less than the 75% Australian-born citizens. (2007)
    If we look at reigions of birth, people born in Australia, now are at 73.5%. I would not think a minority of people would account for a whole country’s population growth.
    Just to chuck in more raw data, % people that are not ‘white’ (areas excluding europe/north america) in proportion to Australia’s population is 13.4%. I still can not see how there will be megacities or how Australia’s ‘non white’ population can account for the growth of the whole country.

    http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~Overseas%20born%20population%20(3.6)

    PS: Antartica has no megacities either. def. of megacities are cities with over 10,000,000 people. Australia can only have two megacities….

    • Still confusing different posters Shocky? Or are you just lashing out at anyone because you feel oppressed and persecuted as a member of the racist bogan trash minority?

      Shockadelic: “Why Why said “Still makes your anti-immigration argument on the basis of a propensity to crime a complete and utter logic fail.” My opposition isn’t based on that.”

      Learn English Shocky. I did NOT claim that your ENTIRE opposition to immigration is based on a propensity to crime. Rick did, so go sook to Rick. I DID say you were making AN argument against immigration based on a propensity to crime, and that claim was flawed given that without immigration, crime would still exist.

      “Your X argument based on Y” does NOT equal “Your entire argument is based on blah blah blah”. You might have many arguments based on many different things. I was specifically criticising the one based on a propensity to crime. Pay attention. 😀

      Shockadelic: Which requires an application which must be approved.
      And after it’s approved, they have the right to be here, rendering your claim that ANYONE not born in Australia immediately doesn’t have the right to be here. So what you have contributed to this debate is therefore: “People who are not born here have NO right to be here! Er hang on…that is, until they successfully apply and, actually DO have the right to be here”.

      Yup, you truly epitomise the intellectual calibre of the anti immigration movement! No wonder it’s contributing so much, gaining so many followers, and doing so well at the polls! *smirk*

      Shockadelic: “It doesn’t matter whether the sovereign is doing or saying anything.”
      Of course you’d think that. You’re trying to change the topic to reflect from your poor debating skills. Unless and until the Queen is trying to take away citizenship from Australians to whom citizenship has been given by Australian authorities, your point is moot. Assuming your point is not moot (even though it’s a completely irrelevant topic you are trying to introduce) you are STILL wrong in trying to claim that the sovereign has more power than Australia’s elected representatives. Wikipedia, which you are so enamoured of, acknowledges that since the Australia act of 1986 the Queen’s role is limited to appointing the Governor General. So does the Governor General’s website. The sovereign doesn’t make any laws, and she certainly doesn’t decide who gets to be an Australian citizen. Australia’s laws do. Those laws were passed by people we voted for – which so far don’t include the likes of you. Sorry. But keep dreaming that the White Australia policy will return.

  15. Kenny Tran:
    “base up(on) something means:
    to *ground* something, such as one’s opinion, decision, or thinking, on someone or something; to *found* one’s ideas or attitude on something.”

    ground on
    found on

    i.e. “based on” = FUNDAMENTAL, not peripheral

    My opposition to immigration is *founded* on ethnicity.
    Anything and everything else is not the “basis”, but adjunctive (added or connected in a subordinate or auxiliary capacity)

    “Sentence example: I base my opinion on many, many facts.’

    Sentence example: “My opinion isn’t based on that”.
    i.e. My opposition to immigration is not *fundamentally* connected with crime.
    This statement does not *preclude* crime being an adjunctive/auxiliary element, however.

    If my choice of brown bread is ‘based on’ nutrition, does this preclude the influence of price, taste or any other peripheral factor?

    “Population growth is currently at 2% in Australia. Population density is at 2.9 people per km squared, a slim chance for any megacity.”

    Our population density is irrelevant, as most of this continent is desert.

    The population of our largest cities grows faster than the general population, as it attracts both immigrants and regional Australians seeking work.

    “If we look at regions of birth, people born in Australia, now are at 73.5%. I would not think a minority of people would account for a whole country’s population growth.”

    Moron, my comment was referring to M-Dawg’s VIDEO link.
    *World* population growth.

    “PS: Antarctica has no megacities either”

    PS. Antarctica is not considered an inhabited continent at all.

    It has *no* cities whatsoever and never will.

    Do you think you’re clever bringing Antarctica into this, as if I anyone would be including it in a discussion about the *population* growth of “continents” ?

    “Australia can only have two megacities”

    It currently has none.
    And some of us are quite happy about that.

    Why Why: “”your *anti-immigration argument* on the *basis* of a propensity to crime”

    Basis.
    “your anti-immigration argument”.

    Not “one of the factors supplementary to your anti-immigration argument which is *based on* ethnicity”.
    Got it?

    “I did NOT claim that your ENTIRE opposition to immigration is based on a propensity to crime. Rick did”

    And he used the words “based on”.
    To which I responded with “not based on”.
    Which you somehow claim is a contradiction.

    Then you use the word “basis” yourself after this, and I’m not going to presume you’re continuing the same argument?

    “I DID say you were making AN argument”

    No, you said “*your* anti-immigration argument”, not “an argument”.
    There was no minimisation.

    “without immigration, crime would still exist.”

    Crime by the native-born exists everywhere.
    Crime in Australia, by people not currently living here, could not exist *at all*, if we didn’t let them into the country.

    “And after it’s approved, they have the right to be here”

    Correct.
    *after*.

    That means people *born elsewhere* have no automatic ‘right to live here’ (“rights”, by defintion, don’t require an application).

    They have a right to live here *if*, and only *if*, they:
    a. apply (if they don’t apply they have no “right to live here”, which is the *normal* official status of all non-citizens).
    b. the application is *approved* ( the “right to *apply*” is therefore not a ‘right to live here’ since this application can be rejected).
    Got it?

    “Unless and until the Queen is trying to take away citizenship from Australians to whom citizenship has been given by Australian authorities, your point is moot.”

    And unless the Queen ceases to be the sovereign, who gives assent to law, your constant reference to “democratic” laws is “moot” (ah, Mr ESL, “moot” means “open to debate”)

    “you are STILL wrong in trying to claim that the sovereign has more power than Australia’s elected representatives. Since the Australia act of 1986 the Queen’s role is limited to appointing the Governor General.”

    And who is the Governor-General?
    The *sovereign’s* representative, who acts on her behalf.
    That’s why the GG had the “power” to dismiss *elected* MPs in 1975.
    Got it?

    “You truly epitomise the intellectual calibre of the anti immigration movement!”

    And you truly epitomize the pathetic useless pedantic emptiness of the pro-immigration argument.

    • Shockadelic: “That’s why the GG had the “power” to dismiss *elected* MPs in 1975.”
      OH HOW RELEVANT. What do you do when you’re called up on for trying to change the topic in a debate? If your name is Shocky you bring up a constitutional crisis that had nothing to do with whether Australian MPs or the Queen has more power over immigration matters. But hey anything to detract from Shocky’s failure at making a point. Yes, the constitutional crisis of 1975 in a debate about immigration. So relevant. So relevant! This from the gay man who applauded Scott – his fellow white trash bogan who wants homosexuals to be denied equality – for arguing that his opponents can’t stick to the topic. All hail the king of debating. The constitutional crisis of 1975. So relevant.

      Shockadelic: “And you truly epitomize the pathetic useless pedantic emptiness of the pro-immigration argument.”
      Useless as in the APP?
      Useless as in the Australia First Party?
      Useless as in your own attempts at convincing passersby on this site diretcly (sic) of the strength of your views?
      Or useless as in bogan white trash who will never represent Australia and whose position on immigration will never be adopted by elected lawmakers (who apparently in Shocky’s deluded mind have less power than the governor general in the day to day running of Australia – even though his favourite academic source Wikipedia tells him otherwise)?
      Which definition of useless are you talking about Shocky – is there another that you want to pull out of the dictionary? 😀 Is there another one you think will salvage your unsalvageable argument?

      Shockadelic: Correct. *after*.
      Yep – and your point is a still a failure. “No one has the right to be here if they’re not born here, no one, no one, no one…er, unless they actually do have the right to be here because immigration law says so – immigration law made by people who are not the Queen or Governor General, but I’ll selectively quote Wikipedia to make it seem like it is and hope no one notices!” Your whole attempt at thinking is a failure, Shocky, no wonder people like you never get the support they claim they have amongst Australians.

  16. And you truly wasted 5 minutes of my life with some total wankfest that you seem to be on about the definition of the words “based on” and “basis” and whateverthefuck you are talking about… Who honestly cares?

    Also – since we seem to be on this theme – You truly epitomize the nitpicking whining little shits that have no basis for their anti-immigration stance other than an abject and irrational fear of the unknown.

    How do I know this? Because you have not once showed any medium to long-term trends that have taken place since the end of the White Australia Policy, to show that there is any negative deviations in any or all the standard indicators of living standards in this country, that can be truly and solely or even to a greater extent, attributed to immigration. You have also given nothing other than ill-informed conjecture regarding any forecasting of the *future* medium to long-term effects of immigration.

    • Terror Australis: “Because you have not once showed any medium to long-term trends that have taken place since the end of the White Australia Policy, to show that there is any negative deviations in any or all the standard indicators of living standards in this country, that can be truly and solely or even to a greater extent, attributed to immigration.”
      That would be addressing the point. Shockadelic clearly isn’t up to the task.

  17. Terror AUSTRALIS!!! said

    “And you truly wasted 5 minutes of my life”

    And you’ve wasted so much more of mine.

    “with some total wankfest that you seem to be on about the definition of the words “based on” and “basis”. Who honestly cares?”

    *I* am not the one who keeps going on about this word or that word.
    *I* know exactly what words I use, and what they mean.

    It’s you guys that are “the nitpicking whining little shits” with the “wankfest” about this word, that word.

    STOP DOING THAT and I won’t need to respond.

    • Shockadelic: “*I* am not the one who keeps going on about this word or that word. *I* know exactly what words I use, and what they mean.
      And that’s the problem – nobody else knows. That should tell you something (or it would if you weren’t so epically stupid). Everyone agrees that you are wrong, dumb, can’t debate for shit, and constantly changes the topic. You’re the only one Shocky, the only one, who believes that what you are saying is clear and concise and logical. THE ONLY ONE. Doesn’t that strike you as strange? Maybe if you actually tried debating the topic instead of changing it so that it’s about your interpretation of the English language (that curiously no one agrees with) you might get somewhere.

  18. Shockadelic: “No, you said “*your* anti-immigration argument”, not “an argument”. There was no minimisation.

    There doesn’t need to be. Read the whole post instead of disingenuously trying to respond to just one part of it in an attempt to salvage your dignity.

    Here it is in the simplest terms possible. “Your anti-immigration argument on the basis of crime” means I am referring to your argument on the basis of crime. You MIGHT have many arguments, but anti-immigration on the basis of crime is just one of those arguments.

    Is that simple enough for you? Does your claimed 123 IQ understand that?

    For someone who rails that migrants need to learn English you fuck the language up again and again. For someone who gets into a hissy fit every time people admit they don’t read your posts, you deliberately choose to read only certain parts of other people’s posts. Fail, fail, fail, fail, fail, fail.

    Shockadelic: ah, Mr ESL, “moot” means “open to debate”
    Are you seriously that stupid? Honestly? Fail again. That’s ONLY ONE of those meanings, racist white trash bogan. And the fact that you are trying to debate semantics merely provides more proof that you are either incredibly stupid, deliberately try to put things out of context, or are a pathological liar. I’m going to go with “pathological liar” because the dictionary has more than one meaning for the word “moot”. One of those meanings is “of little value”. Of course, you either deliberately left this out because it would show that you are NOT as clever as you thinks you are, or you are not aware of the other meanings of the word. So here’s a free English lesson for you Shocky. Moot also means “of no practical importance” or “irrelevant”. Pay attention 😀

  19. Why Why said “you bring up a constitutional crisis that had nothing to do with whether Australian MPs or the Queen has more power over immigration matters.”

    It has everything to do with who has ultimate “power” over which laws are made.
    *All* laws.

    You’re the one who made such a big deal about official “power” in another article.
    Now, when it’s convenient for you, the official power hierarchy is irrelevant.

    “Shockadelic: ah, Mr ESL, “moot” means “open to debate”
    Are you seriously that stupid? Honestly? Fail again. That’s ONLY ONE of those meanings, racist white trash bogan.”

    When it is used with the word “point”, as you did, this is its usual meaning.

    Your meaning is generally used only in legal cases (in America).

    Are we in court (in America)?

  20. Shockadelic: It has everything to do with who has ultimate “power” over which laws are made. *All* laws.

    Even if it is relevant, which it isn’t, you STILL FAILED. You quoted Wikipedia – and conveniently forgot to mention that Wikipedia says the governor general follows the conventions of the Westminster system and acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister or elected ministers. The governor general does not make the law – it is passed by elected representatives, none of whom are people like you.

    Shockadelic: Your meaning is generally used only in legal cases (in America).
    Fail again, or another deliberate lie to distort your “point”. Dictionaries will explicitly specify where something is used only in legal cases. For example under “moot”:

    1 open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
    2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
    3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/moot
    The third meaning is used chiefly in legal cases. The other two are not. And again from another dictionary:

    in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean “of no significance or relevance.” Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value… http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot

    So which is it Shocky – are you genuinely stupid and don’t realise how the word is used, or are you deliberately lying to try and salvage your “point”?

  21. You’ll note on the dictionary.reference.com link that the World English Dictionary provides one, and only one, adjective definition for “moot”:
    1. subject or open to debate: a moot point

    If some dictionaries don’t even *list* your second definition, it would hardly be common.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot

    You forgot the last bit:
    “A number of critics have objected to this use [your second definition].
    When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant.”

    So, *some* people accept this second definition, in certain clearly defined contexts, but it is not the general use of the term.

    “Wikipedia says the governor general follows the conventions of the Westminster system and acts only on the advice of the Prime Minister or elected ministers.”

    The “conventions” you speak of are just that, “conventions”.
    They are not the constitutional reality.

    As we saw in 1975, the GG greater authority (as the sovereign’s representative).

    “The governor general does not make the law”

    Yes, he does (or rather the sovereign does, the GG is merely their official representative).
    Without the official royal assent, the “elected representatives” can “pass” any law they want through parliament and it won’t mean shit.

    “Scandal rocked Canberra today, after the parliament unanimously passed two controversial bills, the Jellybeans Must All Be Green Bill and the All Cats Must Die Bill, to which the Governor General, after consulting the Queen, refused assent.”

  22. Shockadelic: Yes, he does (or rather the sovereign does, the GG is merely their official representative). Without the official royal assent, the “elected representatives” can “pass” any law they want through parliament and it won’t mean shit.
    The GG is female btw. Sorry but your points don’t mean shit. The GG’s role is ceremonial, full stop. There isn’t a case in history you can point to that is relevant to this debate, where the Queen or her representative stepped in to change immigration law and until you can, your “point” about how the Queen’s representatives have so much more power than elected MPs (none of whom, by the way, have views like yours) is
    a) moronically stupid and
    b) moot.

    Shockadelic: “*I* am not the one who keeps going on about this word or that word.

    Liar. Again. Yes, you are the one going on about this word or that word.

    Shockadelic: “You’ll note on the dictionary.reference.com link that…”

    As Terror Australis said,

    hyp·o·crit·i·cal (hp-krt-kl)
    adj.
    1. Characterized by hypocrisy: hypocritical praise.
    2. Being a hypocrite: a hypocritical rogue.

    PLUS

    wank·er (wngkr)
    n. Chiefly British Vulgar Slang
    1. A person who masturbates.
    2. A detestable person.

    EQUALS

    …Shockadelic.

    I know you hate this phrase (most likely because you don’t understand it, like you showed no understanding of the word “analogy”, and no understanding of the word “moot” as evidenced by having to look it up) but it’s relevant. Consider your arse owned.

  23. brownlock said “Wait, wait, wait. So Shockaholic is saying it’s OKAY if a guy beats him up, holds a knife to his throat and threatens his life IF HE WAS BORN HERE”

    Twist, Twist, Señora.

    Where did I say it was “OKAY” (all caps emphasis!) for an Australian to do this?

    Violent crime by anyone is not okay.
    But violent crime by an immigrant would *never happen* if he wasn’t here.
    Got it, babycakes?

    “I’ll take that to congress.”

    Please do.
    Wherever “congress” is.

    “Unless you’re Aboriginal, you’re ALL children of immigrants, you ignoramous.”

    Actually ignoramus, the Aborigines migrated here too.

    “There is no such thing as a pure-white Australian!”

    There is such a thing as a White Australian with no non-White relatives.

    “Does that mean the indigenous population of Australia thought that the white settlers were a good thing for their country?”

    The incapacity to see the irony here is mindboggling.

    If it was such a tragedy for one people to be displaced by immigrants, why is it not also a tragedy today, when the same thing happens to another group of people?
    Why is our displacement something to “celebrate”?

    “Uh, I’m pretty sure we brought you pizza and pasta, guy.”

    Appreciated.
    You can leave now.
    We have Pizza Hut.

    “I’m pretty sure the immigrant health workers who wipe my dementia-suffering grandfather’s arse”

    … could easily be replaced by White Australians or Aborigines.

    Who do you think did these jobs a century ago, the fairies?

    “You have too much time on your hands, guy. Keep it up.”

    Don’t worry, I will.

    At least I don’t spend my days searching Facebook to compile lists of offensive comments.
    Now *that* would be truly pathetic!

  24. “I’m pretty sure the immigrant health workers who wipe my dementia-suffering grandfather’s arse”

    … could easily be replaced by White Australians or Aborigines.

    Who do you think did these jobs a century ago, the fairies?

    Idiot.

    A century ago people dropped dead from heart attacks and strokes at the age of 60 after years of hard physical work and often poor nutrition all their lives. That is, if they survived polio, typhoid, typhus, cholera, diphtheria, influenza pandemics and tuberculosis.

    Very few lived long enough to experience the scourge of dementia. There was no great demand for special accommodation for the frail aged because there weren’t any.

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s