Fidel Castro
- Thread starter limerickman
- Start date
In which case,you should be thanking the brave pilots of the Cuban Air Force who shot down hijacked aircraft...no?BillM said:
Sinking the vessels of freedom-loving refugees from an "evil pig" dictator...that doesn't sound too "freedom-loving" to me!
Sinking the vessels of illegal economic immigrants...would the Coast Guard do that?
Do you think these illegal immigrants have anything to do with the crime rate in Florida? Pretty clever of Castro,to allow the dissenters and criminals to go to the US...it saves locking them up or executing them.What a kind and compassionate man he must be.
stevebaby said:Whether they were fired on to disable the vessel or fired on as a warning...they were fired on.
Anyway...the Coast Guard gunner may have missed.
It is very important to stevebaby that we don't consider such problems in some sort of "moral bubble." We must compare all situations to other countries in the world, so I was interested in his take about Australia's immigration policies as they compare to the evil US way of handling it.Wurm said:
nns1400 said:
I know literally dozens of people who emigrated to Australia at various times.
Some went permanently - others went to "see the world".
It's far easier for someone from Ireland to gain a work visa to enter Australia than it is for someone from here to enter the USA.
Since stevebaby isn't around, I'll explain:nns1400 said:
and excerpt from Amnesty International
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA120092002?open&of=ENG-AUS
The ''Pacific Solution''
Australia's response to the Tampa incident illustrates what the government subsequently described as a ''deliberately tough'' approach to asylum seekers and refugees, aimed at ''attacking smuggling practices and sending the strongest possible message to smugglers and their clients [mostly asylum seekers]''.(7) The government thus intentionally treats harshly any unwelcome asylum seekers in order to deter others from trying to reach Australia with the assistance of smugglers.(8) It claims this helps maintain Australia's capacity to select recognized refugees from among those ''most in need'' overseas. However, critics argue that ''t is misleading to claim [such refugees] are the ones who happen to be at the head of a queue of persons ranked according to greatest need. They are the lucky ones in a lottery where some connection with Australia or greater compatibility with Australia usually counts for something.''(9) The Australian response to the Tampa has reinforced existing trends in government policy and added new, more extreme measures.
The Tampa incident occurred at a time when international people smuggling syndicates were sending increasing numbers of asylum seekers and migrants to Australia by boat with false promises of eventual permanent residence. The smugglers exploited the fears and desperation of asylum seekers and migrants mainly from Iraq and Afghanistan, who no longer felt safe in host countries increasingly unwilling to provide care and protection. While overall arrival figures in Australia were small in comparison with other countries (4,137 people arriving in the 12 months to 30 June 2001), the Australian government was concerned about the failure of previous policies aimed at stopping their arrival.(10)
For example, the government has claimed that restricting refugee benefits in Australia and its 10-year-old practice of automatic detention of asylum seekers(11) were essential elements in an approach aimed at ''doing everything possible to fight people smuggling''(12); however, this did not discourage asylum seekers from trying to reach the country on dangerous boat trips arranged by smugglers.(13) Unlike most European countries receiving tens of thousands of asylum seekers each year, Australia's geographical situation meant that authorities were used to an average of no more than 1,000 asylum seekers arriving without visa by boat each year over the past 13 years.(14) Prime Minister Howard also suggested that detention facilities had reached capacity under Australia's mandatory detention system: ''I have to say that we are reaching a situation where our capacity physically, through detention facilities and otherwise, without massive additional expenditure to erect new facilities, that capacity is reaching the ceiling, it is reaching breaking point.''(15) This comment fails to consider whether it is necessary and appropriate to detain all asylum seekers, including for example, families with babies, who arrive without visas.
nns1400 said:
I presume you're aware of what your country does to people who are illegal immigrants?
nns1400 said:
The Australian State offices (Coast Guard, Military) to my knowledge do not fire on vessels approaching their shore.
The same cannot be said for the US Coast Guard.
Those aren't illegal immigrants until they reach shore....until then they are nothing more than criminals encroaching on our sovereign territory.limerickman said:
Get over it already Limerick..you are obviously an intelligent guy...but you beat the horse until it's not only dead but nothing but a pile of friggin bones on the ground.
You're a hypocrite who applies rules to different members from different countries.
Illegal immigrants in America have NOTHING to complain about...free education, healthcare, housing, assistance...you name it. If our local police happen to stop them for anything....it's incredibly rare for them to even take action on it...knowing full well that they are here illegally.
Give it a rest already....we know...America sucks. Americans suck. The American flag sucks, american bicyclists suck, american beer sucks, it all sucks...if it's from America. We know...we get the Limerick message.
BillM said:
So if they're not illegal immigrants - why does your Coast Guard fire upon them?
BillM said:
If illegal immigrants have nothing to complain about - and everything is hunky dory - why was there a civil day of protest when your goverment attempted to "criminalise" those vulnerable people?
Everything isn't hunky dory from a citizens perspective...the illegals turned unruly precisely because we want to criminalize them being here.
Do you always talk in circles?
I answered your first question in the very quote that you quoted from me
I assume that trait must be an Irish thing.
Do you always talk in circles?
I answered your first question in the very quote that you quoted from me
I assume that trait must be an Irish thing.
BillM said:
Actually Bill, you contradicted yourself.
If people in vessels aren't illegal immigrants until - as you claim - they reach your shores, then what basis does the US Coast Guard have for shooting at them ?
And secondly Bill, we all know that everything isn't hunky dory with regard to illgal immigrants in your country - despite your statement "......free education, healthcare, housing, assistance...you name it"
That statement about the illegals turning unruly Bill, - is that a reference to the peaceful protest, on 2nd May 2006, called "A Day Without Immigrants",
Bill?
But they aren't detained on islands for years with no due process, as in Australia, which there is no whisper of condemnation from you, because an American isn't doing it.limerickman said:
I doubt Australia allows unidentified vessels to just cruise on into their country without challenge, nor would any other country. If you want answers to your questions about the US Coast Guard the last page was full of information that you have ignored, as usual.
The protests are because they are afraid of losing all their free stuff that they get now.
Gotta go, Juan's crew needs some lemonade out there....
nns1400 said:
Bit rich criticising Australia for detaining people for years and years, in legal limbo with no access to due process?
I'd look closer to home before trying to take a pop at Oz.
nns1400 said:
......because no Aussie is trying to defend what happens in that country.
Whereas you're trying to defend (poorly I might add) your country's policies.
nns1400 said:
Illegal immigrants don't have access to the range of benefits which were listed earlier.