So, why did this ‘Hakim’ character “escape” from Iraq if it was OK to leave his wife and child behind? What sort of man runs away from his family, leaving them to the purported dangers of a country like Iraq and comes illegally to Australia? Why do some Australians express sympathy for the relatively few people who claim they ‘have to leave’ their counties and head for Australia, while most of their countrymen, who perhaps cannot afford the price of a people smuggler, remain behind?

“They were Muslims and the traditional family structure meant everything to them.”

Bah and humbug! They strip the old parents of their savings, and hubby runs off to Australia. And the tragic ‘Asera’ hopes that ‘Hakim’ will be “able to support his family as a man must.”

That’s a give-away, surely. Perhaps there is no real danger; ‘Hakim’ just can’t get work in Iraq. Asylum is meant only for people in fear of their lives, not for economic migrants. But, they lie to Australian immigration and Bob’s your uncle. Anyone with a good yarn can come to live in Australia, even if they come illegally.

“Hakim is angered that so many were judging asylum seekers to be of low character.” Well, poor old ‘Hakim’ ! What does he expect when he jumps the queue ahead of thousands of others waiting in camps already processed by the UN? Australia is a land of integrity and a fair-go; we don’t live by Middle Eastern values.

However, we can’t blame ‘Hakim’ for wishing that “Australia had a more intelligent government…”; that seems to be pure Brian Holden. Our government was doing what was expected of it: trying to protect our borders from uninvited and illegal entrants.

This article is a too-long tear jerker, inappropriate for a time when 80% of Australians are fed up with Rudd’s inaction on illegal boats, and immigration’s inability or unwillingness to repatriate liars and cheats.

Rudd has failed Australia in not dealing with illegals as he promised prior to his election

There are close to 2 million Muslims already in Australia. Let enough of these tear-jerking cases in as well from all parts of the Islamic world and soon 30% of our population will be Muslim. Those who think this is ok please take the trouble to read the contemporary histories of Europe with special reference to the UK,Belgium holland and france and italy.

There are equally sad stories out of African refugee camps. Why treat Muslim refugees preferentially? At least the African,Sri Lankans and Chinese lay no further demands like shatria law on us and our institutuions and way of life are not threatened. Imams are openly preaching the overthrow of infidel ASustralia.

just be careful in your appraisals.

socratease

Well done "socratease"

Thanks for your "Facts" - where on Earth did you pull 30% from?!!

"In Australia, Muslims account for about 1.5 per cent of the population."
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2007/02/limit-muslim-migration-australia-warned.html

Number %
Muslim 340,397 1.7
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Australia

Try to stop talking bullsh1t.

Alyssa KT writes

"In Australia, Muslims account for about 1.5 per cent of the population."

I wonder if anybody has ever done an honest study on the crime rate among this very small population base. If you went to some of the prisons you might be surprised at their 'over representation' which social engineers call disadvantage while others would say they are over represented in the amount of crime committed. One wonders why with only 1.5% representation they also get such a say. In some places even beaches close so they can use them exclusively.

"Hakim wished that Australia had a more intelligent government..." Geez Hakim, I wished we had a few more of the same on OLO.

Don't know whether I would have used that narrative style Brian, but who am I to say? Hard to sustain for 1000 words.

Basically mate the boat arrivals are secretly staged by News Corporation to provide fantasic pics of, well, boat arrivals.

This has been going on since post the Vietnam war. They represent bugger all as a total percentage of refugees. But our media is 'aqua minded' which means, if you're a dumb bunny, that some think we're being invaded by Muslims (Saracens carrying scimitars!) from the East with their weird Muslim ways such as praying.

Why do we think that? We keep seeing the same pictures of boat arrivals. Why? Because boat arrivals tell a story. What story Cheryl? Well, if you're a moron, they tell the story of INVASION.

Racism takes many forms. It can be small comments such as 'I'm not racist but..', to the antipopulation efforts of the dingbat greenies and recycled Malthisians who pair off nicely with the National Front.

Good on you Brian.

You are right, these illegal immigrants are real people.

They are also aliens.

The entry of aliens into another country without leave constitutes invasion. If in doubt, ask the aborigines.

The ultimate tragedy that will come in future years is that these people will have to be declared enemy aliens, with all that that implies.

The starry-eyed idealists, who seem to think that there should be no restriction on entry, need to remember that if we were to take 120 million, and reduce our standard of living to that in Bangladesh, with Sydney and Melbourne reduced to stinking, heaving slum cities like Dacca, we would only absorb 18 months of the world's population increase.

The real problem is over-population. Relax, nature is very good at taking care of this. The sad thing is that it involves four horsemen.

Weren't Four Horseman of the Apocalypse a band with Demise Roussous avec mou mou? Would you say plerdsus that people are mainly enemies that you haven't got to know yet?

I'm sorry about all of these questions right off but you're not a member of Sustainable Population Australia are you?

They talk a lot about the 'end days', the 'day of judgement', the Book of Revelation and how we'll all be hunkered down in caves craddling machine guns or maybe a last stand ala Charlton Heston in the Omega Man.

Good luck with that.

Cheryl,
How dare you! I doubt that they'd have him.

plerdsus,

They aren't illegal they are refugees!

We know who you are and I'm sending a dozen to your place
Signed CIA

Alyssa, I didnt say that the Muslims were already 30% of the population but that they would soon represent 30%.Its not really the same thing. The average Muslim family has about 6 or 7 kids. Aussies reached ZPG some years ago. Or about ZPG to be exact. Right? How long will it take for the 30% to be reached? Their population here doesnt remain static on which I base my figures but grows a few thousand each year. It's impossible to do the maths exactly but anyone can see that it shouldnt take too long before they reach that mystical 30% Muhammad said would be needed to take over a country.

I normally wouldnt be concerned, but their leaders are quite loud and emphatic about their contempt for the rest of the country. None of us would mind what numbers of Chinese,Indians, Africans South Seas Islanders or any others coming and growing in numbers.They pose no threat to us, our institutions and our culture and way of life. I have a lot of sympathy for Muslims who abjure the political agendas of Islamic conservative leaders.Some of these Muslims have in fact married Christians and Hindus and all they want is to live in peace and harmony. They are more than welcome as far as I am concerned.

socratease

socratease

Yep,it's all so sad,and the sadness is overwhelming.
So,just what is Australia supposed to do? Keep packing all these sad sacks in when the nation is already overpopulated?

Get real,bleeding hearts and boosters - withdraw from all treaties pertaining to refugees,deport illegals to country of origin with no appeal and,above all,cease immigration of all sorts and cancel breeder welfare.

We are already in a deep hole of our own digging.We first need to stop digging then take effctive action to get out of the hole.

Lovely article, Brian Holden. However, as most of the comments thus far indicate, those who most need to hear your message about "core decency in our society" are more interested in expressing their fear and hatred than in showing compassion and common decency towards those who are less fortunate than themselves.

Unfortunately, these are members of the same minority who will respond readily to the competing racist dog-whistles that will inevitably feature in the forthcoming election campaign.

I love the lazy term "we have to find a BETTER way"- better in which aspect?
-Better according to the more 'charitable' morals and letting them in?
-Better according to those who do not want them and saving the money deporting them instead of incarcerating them?
-Better in setting a negative example to other would-be boat arrivals by harsher punishments for trying to enter our waters?
-Better in transparency and taking our names of the refugee bills at the UN?
-Or better in simply having faster and more specified judgement and processing criteria (again, more efficient for whom?)?

Ask someone what's better and they'll come up with something different- there is not only a single moral discourse in the world that everyone who doesn't agree with is merely failing to live up to.

King Hazza

Good contribution.

You are right. I demand a better solution to the boat-people problem - and yet I have no idea what that could be. However. the point of the article is that if we are going to be cruel, then let us admit that we are and not pretend to ourselves that we are beyond reproach.

My problem is that I have a grandaughter aged 3.

146 like her struggling in the water and then dying has to affect me

Maybe if we stopped interfering in their countries they could sort out their own problems.

After economically, militarily and politically raping their countries for the last 90 years, overthrowing their own democractically elected governments and installing our own sponsored despots should we really be so surprised when they leave the resulting baby on our doorstep?

Unfortunately their problem has always been that our oil is under their land.

Under the Offshore Refugee and Humanitarian visas only 0.2% of European and Latin American applicants are granted protection.
Migration Officers at different Australian Embassies, e.i in Chile rather than understanding applicants' circumstances & situation are still using any excuses to deny protection to a professor and his family in spite of evidence provided. On the other hand, most boat people jump the queue and do not provide other evidence than "their word" however the government grant them protection. The immigration Department clearly states that applicants from Europe or Latin America (western countries) are last placed in their scale of priorities.

The 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol is a legally binding treaty. Unfortunately, the Australian government and Refugee organisations in Australia put first the international laws rather than Australia's future. Futhermore, they ignore their responsibility involving building a more cohesive Australian society.
In that respect, culture is essential. For example, can be put two people with very different cultural values and believes to live in a house and expect that they create a friendly and harmonious environment when one of then is not flexible of willing to accept and negotiate their differences?. We should look at Inglaterra and France, to understand what may be the future of Australia.
It is not about being racist or putting down other cultures. It is about Australians having the right to protect a society that with its current values and believes has demonstrated that is successful. Most visitors think of Australia as a great place to live and most of us cannot disagree with them.

Recent Australian History has demonstrated that migrants from western countries can easily integrate into the Australian society. So, the government should set up its migration policies accordingly.

Culture is at the core of any society. It is about values and believes we shared or are willing to share. I really hope that in 20 years Australia is still the same country I felt in love with more than a decade ago.

Good day,

Fair enough Brian, I think it would at least be appropriate to allow the UN to write us off the charter, and good point Hobbles.
Although the relationship between involvement in the war against the refugees' country, whether they actually pick our country at all as opposed to a neutral one (possibly preferable from their point of view), and how much our responsibility changes once we withdraw (or of course, broken election promises to withdraw).
Also keep in mind that any Australian government only represents about 35% of the population due to our faulty concepts of what a 'voting majority' is, so the remaining 65% are being held responsible for them.

From my understanding Australia has signed
a legal agreement to take in a certain
number of refugees. In other words we're
legally obligated to do so and I believe
that compared to other countries - even
much poorer countries - we're far short of
the agreed mark.

However, what I don't understand is -
why can't we process these people much faster
than we do? New Zealand does it much quicker,
why can't we? Surely it can't be that difficult to
find out if someone is a genuine refugee. Air-ports
check the authenticity of travellers trying to enter
into the country at a relatively fast rate - so why
do we need detention centers?

There has to be a better way of dealing with this
problem than what's currently on offer - and politics
and finger-pointing should be kept out of it.

I think the IPCC would approve your Contribution.
It's nicely "Mooned Up".

There is plenty Morally wrong with Modern Australia caused by greed mostly , we have lost the Village way of life there is no Community of care we are not mindful of how basic life is in some Countries .

Cases of 3 Family's living in one house is common now in Oz . With 6 - 7 kids each soon pays for a house , the Real Estate Moguls that run the country would be happy .

So nobody cares .

I am a Pensioner , I have 2 Dependants yet , I receive SS for one who is an Aspergers Person and none for the other with the elevation in Power and Water Costs we can no longer afford Vegetables and our clothing is starting to look a bit secondhand but I am not winging and I am not contemplating any departures in a leaky boat .

So I must be better off in Oz than my equal in ShiLanka at least I have never been attacked by an army and had half my relatives murdered.

I feel happy that I am unlikely in Oz to be attacked by the Australian Army !

I find it extremely odd that all the ShriLankens I know are incredibly friendly and civilized and AFAIK well educated some a bit hard to decipher (tend to talk very fast).

ShazBaz continues;

ShiLanken Food is to die for, I have a favorite S'La Eatery in Melbourne I always order the Combo , comes on a SS Tray a pressing with about 7 offerings with a Lassi Glass in the center , Pure unadulterated Magic.......Let them IN let them in Let em IN I love em it's just like the Italians 50 years ago when I used to frequent a Restaurant about diagonal across from The Southern Cross that used to be so crowded it was ridiculous , Look what they did for us (the friggen Dagoes) do you live on Casseroles and Irish Stew and jelly of course you didn't ! Let em in Let em

Brian Holden,

You say that “the point of (your) article is that if we are going to be cruel, then let us admit that we are and not pretend to ourselves that we are beyond reproach.”

Who are these cruel people? John Howard, Kevin Rudd? People like me who voice an opinion that nobody who is not invited to Australia should be allowed to invite themselves? I think that Howard was weak, not cruel, for having allowed any people who arrived on boats to stay in Australia; I think Rudd is even weaker – he talked tough but he has failed to keep his promise about border protection. He is not cruel: he is encouraging people smugglers and their paying passengers to come here by word and by deed.

As for people like me, a majority of Australians who, according to polls, want a stop put to illegal boat entry – do you regard us, your fellow Australians, as cruel people?

We cruel and you are kind?

I have one 3 year old granddaughter, like you. I also have two 3 year old great-granddaughters, plus two baby great-granddaughters. Not one of them thinks that I’m cruel. I don’t think that I’m cruel.

So, why do you assume the right to call people you don’t know ‘cruel’ just because their integrity and loyalty to Australia and the Australian way of life leads them to want our governments to protect our borders from people we know nothing about?

You are an intelligent man, who writes well. You’re fictitious (presumably, you were not actually in attendance) account of the last minutes of SIEV-X was dramatic and did the job for your fans. You are not like the usual yobbos who call people names like ‘racist’ to try to silence them. So, perhaps calling people who don’t agree with your attitudes ‘cruel’ is you polite, gentlemanly way of doing the same thing as the louts? Whatever, I will accept your denigration and being called a racist by the less literate if that is the price of free speech.

....continued,

So, back to your 3 year old granddaughter – the innocent child you used to tug at the hearts of the already converted. I don’t believe that you would even dream of taking her on a smugglers boat with the obvious risks, any more than I would dream of taking my family on such a stupid, unnecessary voyage. It would be ‘cruel’, wouldn’t it Brian?

So who are the cruel and self-centred bastards really, Brian?

You also object to the word ‘illegals’ being used. They are illegals, Brian. None of the objectors to the word have ever been able to produce evidence that country-shopping is OK, even for genuine refugees. Do you have evidence, Brian? I would be pleased to see it.

The only true measure of 'Humanity' must be the ability to feel another's pain; to imagine being in someone else's position. I think, Mr Holden, you did this very well.
Sadly, looking at these posts, it only works on the already converted.

Grim, I'm afraid to say you also fall neatly under my statement of the egocentricity of the statement "A better way" and how some people failing to register different points of view as anything but a failure to live up to their own.

Just because some people feel unsafe around a desperate individual knocking on their front door (particularly if that individual grew up and educated about life in a mean place)- instead of sympathetic- it does not make them "inhuman".

How do we solve the problem of the boat people?
That's the question that's going to perplex
us for sometime to come.

Foreign arrivals in this country have never been
a problem in the past until the media started to
make a big issue out of it, and the politicians
use the issue for their own agendas.

The records show that illegal arrivals by plane
or overstayers, exceed boat people arrivals by 500%.
Yet nobody makes an issue out of this. It is easy
to overlook a handful in a plane than dozens on a
boat.

Illegal arrivals on a plane if intercepted by customs
are turned around and sent back. Why not escort the boat
people back to their point of origin? This was a
question that has been raised in the past. Unfortunately,
using the navy for those purposes is very expensive and
the government may not want to spend the money. This tactic
may also appear to be "politically incorrect."

Don't forget that these boat people have ended up in
Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, and other areas and
the governments of these countries are just as anxious
to remove those people as soon as possible. They end up
on their way to Australia. Australia can take their example
and send these people onto New Zealand, and ports beyond.
However, Australia has signed a legal agreement which is
binding and the government has to abide by that agreement.

The result being - that whatever the government
decides to do, they must undertake it in a logical,
humanitarian, and expedient manner that the bureaucracy
permits.

This is a universal problem and as long as wars, famines,
natural disasters, et cetera, continue -
history has shown that people will be
continually on the move. Unfortunately, at present
many feel that it's somebody else's problem -
and they don't want this
problem in their backyard. However, the problem is not
about to go away any time soon.

People arriving by plane do not arrive illegally. They become illegals only after their visas expire or if they work in Australia without a working visa. Immigration is always tracking these people down (not as successfully as might be desired), but it is not an easy job once they have disappeared in the general population.

These people cannot be compared with illegals coming in boats without visas or identity papers; nor can the policing of visa over-stayers be compared with the policing, prevention and turning around of the illegal boats, who actual look for naval and customers patrols to escort them to Christmas Island. The prevention and turning around of boats would not – if the government had the will to do it – have any of the time consuming, expense and identification difficulties of visa over-stayers.

People paying smugglers to get them here illegally should not even be mentioned in the same breath as those who arrive here legally, then stay illegally. The situations are entirely different, even though government should be acting stringently on both offences.

Even the offshore refugees who have been taken into Australia after UN processing are starting to complain that they cannot apply for family reunion consideration because of the people arriving illegally on boats.

The Refugee Convention of 1951 is simply not appropriate for today’s situation, no matter who signed it, and there is nothing in it legally binding signatories to deal with illegals who did not exist in the period the Convention applied to. It is doubtful that any country would sign anything like it today.

Leigh

I have noticed for a long time the care you put into your comments.

I need to better express what I meant by "cruel". I meant not attempting to feel as the boat-people feel.

Ever been in a position when you just had to get away regardless of the consequences? Saddam's Iraq is almost inconceivable. A lowly-ranked officer could walk into your home, take your daughter and rape her for a week. If you were suspected to be adverse to the government by simply having a friend who was, you could be boiled alive.

The instinct in both you and I would be to run. So when Asera ran with Farrah, she was not so much being irresponsible, but was an animal in flight. So Leigh, you are seriously underestimating what these people were running from.

421 got onto a boat 19.4m x 2m. Measure that out in your back yard. Once seeing the boat, why would anyone ever get onto it? A survivor said that those who attempted to turn back were beaten by the Indonesian police who wanted to get rid of them.

There are two sides to every story. Those who are very worried about boarder protection will see one side. Read on the web what the experience of a detention centre did to one doctor who simply volunteered for the novelty of the work

One wonders how Brian Holden can be privy to the most intimate thoughts of Asera : from what she was thinking when she left Iraq, to what she was thinking moments before she drown .He appears to know it all!

His piece reads more like a chapter from Mills & Boon than any investigative reporting, constructed to trawl emotion –with little regard for facts.

His statement: “Because our children have Asian and Middle Eastern school friends, they are far less likely to be as racist as their parents”, seems to carry an implication that racism is endemic to white societies (a belief prevalent in circles that are big on refugee sympathy). It’s almost as if the only inoculation for this wretched “racism” is to import foreigners who will somehow (ala cowpox v smallpox) make us immune to further outbreaks.

How is it Holden is not aware that some of the most virulent forms of racism are to be found in “Middle Eastern & Asian” societies (except of course, few dare call it racism) .

Further, the live-and- let-live ethos we generally find in Aust society, I’d suggest, has more to do with a relative abundance of resources /opportunity than any permanent change in human nature, and if Australia was to following a policy of accepting all needy ( mindful of the numbers involved) – which it seems we’d have to do, if we were to be of principle & evenhanded –we’d very quickly lose that relative abundance and become just another overloaded, Middle Eastern franchisee .

What I don't like about the tone often expressed in the article is how some writers here are trying to disingenuously simplify the situation as something along these lines:

There are lots of super-nice friendly people who are fleeing across the world on the only way available to them to get to our country but they're all stopped and imprisoned solely on the basis that a bunch of super-racist Christians with no cross-cultural experience who are ignorant to their suffering or else how could they possibly be so morally deviant, due to indignation about cutting the que through nautical measures and improperly filled out visa forms
Throw in a splash of gigantic shariah demographic conquest in the mix.

No seriously, that's what it sounds like.

It aint. As long as anyone advocating any position based on stupid exaggerations or strawmen this situation will remain exactly the same.
There are people with plenty of experience and familiarity advocating BOTH positions, and factors such as character of applicants are also grounds of rejection.

Can we please move this topic above the pathetic stereotypes please?
(or just go ahead and ignore this post as part of the 'too hard' basket- or pick and choose parts you like and pretend the rest didn't exist.)

Good post,King Hazza.
socratease

I thank his Majesty kindly for throwing the word 'neatly' at me; it's not an epithet I have had to wear very often.
As to egocentricity, perhaps His Majesty could supply an example of inhumanity applied to his royal self, which could be described as 'better'; ie, if he was drowning, and everyone decided not to pull him out, would that be better?
I do have to agree on his assessment of his own courage, however. As I have mentioned on several occasions concerning the 'children overboard incident, I was gobsmacked that so many Australians, sons and daughters of ANZACS, should be so panty wetting terrified of a handful of refugees on a leaky boat.
As for stupid exaggerations, is his royal highness suggesting children didn't drown? Or that the parents of such children wouldn't be anguished? Or that a father shouldn't do everything he could to get his family out of a horrible existence, and into a better one?
Or that some people in our own society regard their own 'discomfort' as more important than someone else's torment?
Please, be so kind as to identify the 'stupid exaggerations'.
As I see it, the major problem lies in the fact that almost all immigrants and refugees not only end up in the cities, but very specific suburbs of the cities; leading inevitably to racial tensions in those areas. I would suggest many of these problems, like unemployment and work visas, would be better handled as a local problem, by local councils. Instead of bringing in refugees to 'Australia', why not bring a few into say, Bundaberg (major fruit growing area)?
Or any area where there are people prepared to sponsor, or mentor the newcomers.
And yes, your majesty, I would be only too happy to have such people live next door to me.

Well Grim in my post to you earlier gauging "humanity" in, approximately, willingness to take refugees, my post simply argued such weak claims- and you DO fall neatly into the category of 'my-morals-only' if you feel that anyone who doesn't show compassion towards refugees is less than human.

Anyway- my point is the term "better" is nothing but subjectivity.
"Better" could be helping them get into the country for those that wish to be charitable, while "Better" could be measures PREVENTING them get into the countries by those that don't want them.

And comfort vs charity could go a reasonable way if you are advocating also letting in those of low character, behavior, respect for laws or standing a poor chance of integrating or respecting their neighbours (the point of allowance/denial of visas on such grounds- as part of our visa rejection criteria that seems to be overlooked by everyone needs to be raised again to analyze as another issue).
Not to mention harassment, theft and assault of disregarding character criteria.
Many people put those contexts together (maybe too generalizingly) and perceive it as having to give up their peace to accommodate someone who would sooner abuse them than return it- and live with this for the rest of their lives (no good turn goes unpunished, after all ;P).
I don't see how one's right to these things must be overridden because some other person had theirs threatened more than they, previously.

Regional resettlement should be an option- many areas would love to have them, so I think another thing that needs to be done is consult which people actually DO (or else there is no community to integrate them into).

I don't care who they let in but muslims are trouble-keep 'em out!

I appreciate your response, Brian.

I cannot honestly put myself into the shoes of these people; all I can do is realise how much better off I am than people who feel that they need to pay smugglers to take them on a dangerous journey to enter another country illegally.

I am better off than they are because of my Anglo/Saxon background which has ensured a decent life for all Australians. Countries like Iraq, Sri Lanka, Iran, Africa etc. have yet to reach our stage of enlightenment and decency. Our forbears fought for those things long ago. Third World countries must do the same.

I simply do not believe that it is the job of Australia – or the west in general – to provide foreigners with the same standards as we have: they must do it on their own, and coming to the West will not help the vast majority of their countrymen who are left behind.

I am also aware of some of the things which occur in these countries to some of their people. I am not convinced that those coming here illegally are necessarily victims of terror, particularly as most destroy any identity documents the might have had. More importantly, I don’t believe our immigration officials are capable of choosing between genuine need for asylum and economic motives for wanting to come to Australia. They have a bad track record – not even able to distinguish between a permanent resident and an Australian citizen and unlawful over-stayers a couple of years ago. To this, of course, add Kevin Rudd: the most incompetent and detached Australian Prime Minister since Billy McMahon. This man has lost any semblance of control over border protection, and is not living up to Australia’s unfortunate (in my view) ‘obligations’ to UN processed and genuine refugees still waiting overseas. More illegals mean fewer of the people who have done the right thing in line with our orderly policy, and the outdated 1951 Convention

Leigh,

As so often occurs you offer a voice of reason, commonsense and honesty, often in a sea of other dishonest leftist posters. On this occasion even though I disagree with much of what Brian has said, he is also to be congradulated for the calm tone of his posts. He is unlike so many of the Politically correct leftist bullies that troll around on this website. It is only a matter of time before Brian, through reason and considered debate will, I believe see the error in his ways.

Well done.

Shorter Leigh: 'I'm alright Jack, stuff everybody else who's not Anglo-Saxon'.

Shorter ozzie: 'You're wonderful Leigh, because you're as racist as me, unlike all those nasty human rights types who point out how hateful I am'.

What a load of right wing, racist tossers. It's the moral equivalent of 'I'm OK jack, now F-off".

At best their ideas are lost in clumsy relativism, at worst, they parade their ignorance of Australia's immigration and refugee policies with Lady Godiva immodesty but unlike Godiva - they hide in anonimity.

I don't much care if people come out and start screaming 'I hate blacks, Muslims, Asians,' etc but don't hide behind your condescending rhetoric that you give a damn.

Who was the pin head who said we should let the aforesaid mentioned in to Australia because their country isn't as developed as Australia? Is that your refugee policy? Maybe we should measure their heads and see how developed they are re brain size. Lets start with you.

Leigh, look up John Rawls. He's the social philosopher which this Government (and every Oz government going back to Fraser) base their immigration and refugee policies on. Never heard of him? Didn't think so.

Are boat people real people? Not for Ozzie and Leigh. Remember that cobbers when a government decides to put your fascist policies in to practice and they come for you.

Just when when you thought the Politically Correct trolls had gone on easter holidays, they again return.

ozzie, you and your fellow travellers should read this article, authored by Peter van Onselen and published in 'The Australian' on Saturday. Please note that neither van Onselen nor 'The Australian' could be described as remotely 'left-wing'.

<< Who's afraid of 4500 boatpeople?

BOTH of the main political parties are keen to display their toughness on border protection, so much so that they seem to have lost sight of the plight of the people who are trying to make their way here in rickety boats. >>

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/whos-afraid-of-4500-boatpeople/story-e6frg6zo-1225849056560

Who's afraid of 4500 boat people?

It's only 4500, is it? Someone must have confided the final tally to you,pal. We'll wait and see if that's all we have to contend with.

The people in the UK,Belgium Holland and France etc were once also fed the same line by do-gooders and politically correct and social engineers that they should be compassionate to such reasonably small, similar numbers. Guess what the head count is today?
Only 4000 eh? LOL.
All these do-gooders and politically correct sob's have to worry about is which end of the turd is the cleanest to hold.

socratease

CJ, please stop your Politically Correct trolling.

The article you refer to is well summarised in the last sentence which reads "It's time our politicians started to lead public opinion on this issue instead of following it." I do not deny the author his right to express an opinion, which is however one of over 22 million, all with equal weight, no matter how wrong or right others think those opinions to be.

And here was I in my ignorance thinking that in our supposedly democratic country the political parties were there to represent the views of ordinary Australians. How very ignorant of me. Thanks for helping me to see the light.

Now CJ, go away, do a little reading, get a proper education, then come back and express a more balanced logical point of view, that is more in line with what I think.

Ozzie,I was talking to an Indian student the other day. he is highly connected to a VIP Indian diplomatic person so I can't use names over the internet. We were talking about the numbers of Tamil refugees. He said the Indian giovernment set up a couple of camps to accomodate some few thousand but that was all they were prepared to admit once the camps were full.Ther other later arrivals were eccorted back by armed escorts and repatriated to jaffa. Once the camps were full!
They were smart and compassionate.
When I asked if that wasnt contravening the UN Conventiuon on Human Rights he said that they had followed it to the extent that their resources permitted and if the UN wanted more then the3 UN had better take them in themselves in any other camp they may have in mind.
(1) They had complied.
(2) As far as their resources permitted.
(3) Then the tough stand...that was it. The others were turned away. That implied that other countries should be asked to come to the party. India wasnt going to play the conscience of the Human Rights Commission.
It's easy for the UN to play the enforcer when they had no obligatiuons to the people of the country that was made to play host to the refugees.
Smart and ballsy people these Indians. Why cant we learn from them?

socratease

Ozzie,

As you say, Brian Holden is polite and thoughtful, unlike poor old Cheryl whose attitude is not likely to win anyone over. I wonder how she correlates ‘racism’ with a stance against anyone at all turning up illegally. I’m against the idea of anyone, white, black or polka-dotted turning up in boats.

It would be of little use asking Cheryl herself to explain what racism has to do with a belief in orderly immigration, and refugee intake, controlled by the Australian Government, and not by people smugglers and so-called refugees with enough money to pay the people smugglers; she would serve up more epithets and ignorance.

Having called people like us ‘racists’ without telling us why, Cheryl then advises that she doesn’t “much care” if people go about, “screaming 'I hate blacks, Muslims, Asians,' etc”. So, if out and out racists (which they would be) did that on OLO, Cheryl ‘wouldn’t much mind’. What she really doesn’t like is people using “condescending rhetoric that (we) give a damn.” Note that well. Cheryl, who resorts to abuse, and doesn’t know what she herself is talking about, claims to know when total strangers write something, they actually mean something else, but they are hiding it!

Cheryl also misinterprets as ‘Fascism’ democratic law and order, freedom of speech and the right of any government and its people to decide who it does or does not allow to enter the country it is responsible for.

There are people like Brian Holden, with whom you can disagree but still respect; then there are people like Cheryl, who probably deserve pity rather than scorn.

Not trolling ozzie, just trying to inject some reality into the debate.

<< do a little reading, get a proper education, then come back and express a more balanced logical point of view, that is more in line with what I think. >>

Now that's what I call trolling. I'm sure I'm at least as well-read and educated as you are, very probably more so with respect to cross-cultural matters.

But you knew that already, didn't you?

socratease - the 4500 figure is van Onselen's, not mine. However, while it seems reasonable, the real point is that it doesn't really matter in the overall immigration picture. They are accommodated within our refugee quota, which ought to be considerably expanded anyway, in my view. This can be done sustainably by abolishing the 'skilled' migration program in favour of one that is predicated entirely on humanitarian obligations.

Van Onselen?
Am I supposed to stand in awe of the name? Should I genuflect?
Come on Rev Morgan, this is trolling, a much practised art from what i can see from your posts. You would like to see the numbers "expanded"?
What a compassionate man, so full of the milk of human kindness.
There.
That's what you wanted. Now do you mind letting the debate take on a more level-headed stance.

I would rather expand the refugee quotas in favour of emptying the refugee camps in Somalia, the Congo and other African countries where real trauma and suffering has been experienced. These peoiple are destitute and dont have the tens of thousands of dollars to buy their way into Australia. Here are more deserving cases. Not a syllable of advocacy from you and your do-gooders still wondering about which end of you know what to hold.

Come on.Let up. Your unctious grace is wasted on the rest of us,Reverend CJ.

socratease

socratease: << Should I genuflect? >>

I wouldn't have thought so - he's just a bright young right-wing academic who's written a column in Saturday's Oz that you really should read. If you do, you'll see that it's a refreshingly balanced piece on the topic of this discussion.

Which part of my comment that Australia's refugee program "ought to be considerably expanded anyway" didn't you understand? One of van Onselen's points is that the 4500 asylum seekers who've arrived here since Rudd became PM are easily accommodated within the current refugee quota of 13,750 per annum. If that number is "considerably expanded" as I suggest, then the additional refugees would obviously come from offshore sources like Africa, not to mention refugee camps in SE Asia, Pakistan etc.

There's no need to engage in disingenuous waffle about which refugees are more deserving than others, not to mention the baseless speculation about the legitimacy of those refugees who are accepted. Similarly, there's no need to vilify legitimate asylum seekers as "illegals" and "aliens", when everybody knows that they are entitled to seek refuge under Article 51 of the UN Convention. If Australia abolishes the shonky 'skilled' migration program, we could quadruple our refugee intake while still halving total immigration.

So what's your real problem? Be honest now.

I think the main concern that most Australians have with this whole boat people thing is that we are being taken for a ride. I believe most Australians are fair minded people willing to help genuine refugees. However these boat people are really just taking advantage of Australia's goodwill for their own economic gain.
I have a very close friend who is a refugee from Vietnam more than 20 years ago. That person spent over 1 year in a camp in Indonesia and tells me they were treated very poorly but were thankful for any help they received. Whilst on a boat travelling to Indonesia they were boarded by pirates, robbed, some people killed and some women raped. After 1 year in the camp they received approval from the UN for resentlement in Australia and were again very thankful to the Australian government for any help received. This person I speak of feels the vast majority of these boat people now are just economic refugees out for something better at Australia's expense. She looks at them and just laughs at how fake they are, "they are not genuine refugees". This is what I object to most, somewhere in the last 20 years this whole thing became a business of people just out for a better life.
I have nothing against helping genuine refugees who will respect our laws and be grateful for what they are given.
Today on the News there was a refugee advocate justifying the destruction of property by asylum seekers because the facilities are overcrowded. The same excuse was used last time there was a riot there. So I suppose the next time I get on a crowded bus or train I'm justified in destroying property.
I repeat, my close personal friend is a refugee arriving in indonesia by boat 20 years ago. She feels most refugees today (more than 95%) are fakes and should be sent back. If any of you have more experience than her, I would like to hear your opinion.

Ozzie, I'm familiar with a number of people who consider their own experiences to be more 'real' than the experiences of others; hence the title of this article, perchance?
Your Majesty, you appear to have overlooked the question I addressed to your Royal Personage: under what conceivable circumstances would you regard an act of inhumanity directed at yourself (or perhaps your wife or children) as 'better'?

"Protecting our borders, from women and children
and destitute people, a few hundred, a few thousand
at the most, as though they could ever be a threat
to Australia...

It's possible to play upon our fears and our concerns
about the unknown, unknown people who come from a
different land; they look different and they come from
a religion that's different to what we practice...
When you appeal to these things you appeal to the
worst part of our nature - not the best!"
(Malcolm Fraser - former Liberal PM of Australia).

Many people seem to forget the fears that initially
existed with each wave of people who came to this country.
Australia voted "No" on the first wave of refugees after
the second World War. The Government did what was good
for the country. Australia again voted "No," against
Greeks, Italians, later Vietnamese, and so on - yet the
country not only survived but prospered.

And, it shall continue to do inspite of the current
attempts to again play upon our fears and concerns.

Grim I'm disappointed how much you struggle to digest a simple concept about 'subjectivity'.
An 'act of inhumanity' against someone IS the 'better' option for someone who is in any way better off because of it.
For example, the oppression and tyranny the asylum seekers may have been originally under was the "better" way for the oppressors, as they could more easily keep a mandate.
Locking them out of Australia is the "better" option than letting them in for people that don't want them in the country, or else they see themselves worse off for peace, neighbourly social cohesion and security.
This is a simple fact of life that different people benefit from different things while others pay- whichever way the tables are turned.

All you, me or anyone else does is simply weigh up which group's rights I would sooner compromise for the others- based on perceptions of need, guilt, circumstance or consequence: and this holds true even in a simple discussion about "rights" in general. And sadly some people can't seem to grasp this because they're too absorbed in their own viewpoint to the point that they assume they hold "the one true discourse" to register those of others (even if they do ultimately reject them).

Now kindly answer MY question- what of individual refugees judged to be of poor character, emotional/mental stability or ability to integrate? In the past (and to some considerable extent present) immigration officials actually tend to largely let most refugees who satisfy these requirements into the country, after all.

I'm asking this because so far I've not seen anything more specific than THE refugees (single group- to the point that they're THE 4500) are being entirely denied entry for que jumping grounds- it's bull, they're not.
The issue COULD be how we process their claims (and what we do with them in the meantime), but the 'failed applicants' aren't quite the same- so I'm left wanting for answers and trying to ask a few extra questions.

Foxy,in answer to your recent post let me point out that ythe greeks,Italians and Viets did not threat to subvert the social order and institutions we love and will defend to the death. They had no ulterior motives like those imams who are already claiming which law they will accept and which they dont recognise, and the rights of our women folk are at stake. They believe that Australia will eventually become Islamic

socratease

Dear socratease,

The fundamentalists of any religion are
usually a small minority. Unfortunately
they're the ones that seem to attract
the media - and therefore tend to play
on people's fears and concerns.

Most people simply want to live in peace.

Foxy also keep in mind that there have been differences of integration in past arrivals due to difference of character criteria exercised by different governments- the refugees from WW2 and Vietnam had to pass the tighter criteria- while Malcolm's ignored reports of some of the refugees from the civil war in Lebannon did not but were still permitted citizenship, and the social problems in Lakemba and Cronulla over the past decade were fairly common may well be connected to the difference of criteria.

Again, we need to split up our treatment of refugees on an individual or family-by-family basis judged on character.

Hazz,
you want to be even-handed.I appreciate that.
But even good character is no criteria. All thhose in the twin tower bombings were men of good character; good according the criteria of their imam and community in Pakistan. In Britain the London bomber was a good character primary school teacher who was much-respected by his principal and colleagues. he was loved by his pupils.
He had been indoctrinated and brain-washed to be a mass killer.

socratease

Your Majesty, I'm disappointed how much you struggle to digest a simple concept about objectivity.
Any Law worthy of the name must be applicable to everyone, including oneself. You still haven't managed to supply me with a single instance of an act of inhumanity applied to yourself, which you would describe as 'better'.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting an unqualified open door policy. Citizenship oaths definitely have a place -although I think they could be simplified down to: "are you prepared to respect the rights of others, as you would have them respect yours?"
The point where we differ appears to be that you want to treat people as guilty, until proven innocent.

Dear socratease and King Hazza,

The following website may give you another perspective:

http://australiansall.com.au/archive/post/australia-s-dangerous-fantasy/

Thankyou socratease and although I still believe that character tests are the fairest method, I will still have to think about your point too.

Sigh Grim, I just DID give you a point of how people benefit from violating others' rights, but how about this example example: I am a property developer. It's my rights- construction rights, vs residents rights of a comfortable, peaceful safe environment. The more rights a construction company have- say, to build a giant electricity wire pylon in someone's neighborhood, while cutting costs making it safe, is imposing on those who live there who don't want the pylon around and concerned about the safety hazards and reduced housing value, among issues of visuals and access to sunlight.

Anyway, I also detect you are confusing civil rights of innocent-till-proven-guilty (relating to being forced to pay fines or go to prison) with rights of entry of premises- which you will find will consistently reflect no need to PROVE guilt, but mere suspicion of trouble is enough for the owner to legally bar me from entry or expel me/call the cops if I try to force entry anyway- also there is a requirement I show my ID- in which I may choose to either turn away, or wait on the side till they clear me through. A house they don't even have to open the door for me -so there is much more consistency in matching immigration to legal grounds to enter premises than to trying to match it to crime and punishment.
So long as the people detained are free to demand to be sent back and placed on the transport to take them back home, there is no relationship.

And you haven't exactly answered MY question either- of what DO you do with those who fail character tests?

Contra those who are trying to find ways to keep refugees out of Australia, the Greens are advocating pretty much what I proposed on Monday:

<< Time To Increase Humanitarian Intake, Not Cut It Back
06/04/2010 - 09:23

The Australian Greens have called on the Federal Government to commit to an increase of Australia's humanitarian intake in immigration in the face of the Opposition's anti-asylum-seeker rhetoric, according to Green Senator Sarah Hanson-Young.

Senator Hanson-Young, Greens spokesperson on Immigration and Human Rights, said it was clear that the Opposition either was being ignorant or wilfully misleading about the motivations of asylum-seekers in Australia.

"The Opposition's talk about focusing immigration policy on skills and productivity is a polite way of saying that it wants Australia to ignore vulnerable asylum-seekers,'' Senator Hanson-Young said.

[...]

The Greens support an increase to Australia's humanitarian intake along with increased efforts to fulfil our obligations as a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. The Greens have also called for a national inquiry into Australia's population.

The Greens believe there is room to reduce the overall migration intake through cuts to skilled and business migration.

"We welcome the major parties' interest in a discussion on population, but blaming refugees for perceived population problems is disingenuous and does no one any good,'' Senator Hanson-Young said. >>

http://greens.org.au/node/5852

ozzie - while it's nice that you have a friend who came here as a refugee, how on earth does she know that 95% of current asylum seekers are "fakes"? Can she tell by seeing them on TV, or what?

I personally disagree with such a policy CJ.
But I find it disingenuous for the Greens to try to pander such policy towards the sustainability/infrastructure discourses- as it would be of obvious benefits for Australians lacking skilled employees in various sectors than to continue to leave them blank.

Also note (Grim) that this is a good example of what I was talking about the subjectivity of different morals- in this case, skilled and business immigrants are being judged as less entitled of getting Australian residency than refugees based on (our own perceptions) of need to leave their own countries (not necessarily reach ours though)- thus one discourse of morality applied to immigrants benefits one group at the expense of another.

CJ
Saying someone knows something is true and someone feels something is true are really totally different things. You have changed my wording to be very misleading. If you read my posting again you will find that I stated she FEELS 95% of these refugees are fakes. I never stated she KNEW this. In exactly the same way that you probabaly feel the majority are not fakes, you cannot prove this. She could be incorrect or you could be incorrect.
However she being a genuine refugee having gone through what she did has a far better understanding than both you or I, and she has told me many times that genuine refugees would not act in the way that these people do. That's her opinion, yours I understand is different. If you are going to disagree with me, please at least have the decency not to mislead by misquoting me.

How many times do I have to keep repeating myself. Every wave of immigrants have been subjected to some degree of racism by those who were here before them, but history shows that given time these prejudices wear away if and when the newly arrived migrants prove to be friendly and want nothing more than to be good Aussies who make good +ive contributions to the socio-political fabric of society. Some of these Muslim migrants not only want to reap the social and economic benefits of Australian life they demand that their sharia law supplant our democratically devised legal system.Now ehilst rank and file muslim may not subscribe to this intention their influential and brainwashing imams do and are having their own way. The worst of them has been Ben Brika but he is small fish really. There are many worse than him.
Take a look at the UK. They have publicly from the infamous Finsbury Park mosque have announced that they will dismantle the monarchy and overthrow the democratic system in UK. These ingrates all live off the taxpayers none of them are gainfully employed.They say they claim UK as part of the Third Caliphate.
None of the Viets, Chinese, Malays, Africans Italians Serbs Croats Indians and Sri Lankans have made any such invidious claims. That is what has been shaping our responses to the Muslims in our midst. And who is to blame for this development? And who can change all these developments?? The muuslims in our country.
We would like nothing more than to embrace the arrival of the Muslims if only they accepted us, our way of life and our outstretched hand of friendly overture. Lets hope it wont be long in coming.

socratease

ozzie: << In exactly the same way that you probabaly feel the majority are not fakes, you cannot prove this. >>

Feelings have nothing to do with it. Australian Immigration authorities have consistently determined that the great majority of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are genuine refugees under the UN Convention. Some are found not to be, and they are not granted refugee status.

If you're going to vilify refugees, please do so on the basis of facts rather than feelings - whether they're yours or your friend's.

socratease: << How many times do I have to keep repeating myself. >>

Yeah, we get it. Your problem isn't with boat people, it's with Muslims. So are Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers OK?

Who do you think the majority of boat people are? Long before the Sri Lankans joined the arrivals they were pouring in.Who is it who poses the greatest risk? Everyone of these "sleepers" come costs you and me $82,000.Every boatload costs us $4 million. I dont mind paying this bill if we weren't also buying trouble.That is my main objection.
Those who come without demands will always be welcome.But why do we need to buy trouble like will happen if a packed Football stadium during a footy finals becomes the target of bombers; or Lucas Heights get close scrutiny or army barracks get targeted?? Do we need to buy corpses of innocent Aussies?
What is there in this post that is objectionable?

And be that as it may with the majority of genuine asylum seeker and being given residency, the question is what of those who aren't?
I mean, what do we actually DO with them, which is what the article actually seems to be about?

socratease: << What is there in this post that is objectionable? >>

Besides your clear inference that Muslim refugees are all potential terrorists, nothing I guess.

You didn't answer my question - what about Sri Lankan asylum seekers?

Hazza - as I understand it, "failed" asylum seekers are deported. What's your point?

There are two different problems:(1) failed applications for asylum and (2) Sri Lankans...in part same as (1) but also..

Those Muslims who have failed must be put on the next flight back to Kabul or destination of their choice.

We mustn't forget what made the Sri Lankans boat people in the first place.
These are a radical people who tried to tear a chunk of their own country apart demanding their own homeland. They do not represent all Sri Lankans most of whm are happily still Sri Lankans and proud and loyal. One of them actually rose to be their Foreign Minister whose time of office was cut short when he was assassinated ...by a Tamil Tiger, ofcourse!
These Tamils gave the modern world its first suicide bombers. We have to let some Tamils into the country on the basis that they may have been coerced. Im not sure how we ascertain that. In Australia there are many Sinharas (Sri Lankans who belong to mainstream Sri Lanka in the south and Buddhists,too) who hate these usurpers who wanted to tear the country apart illegally. Even now the Tamils are fund raising for the Tamil Tigers who are lying low in Sri Lanka who will regroup for another attempt at homeland building. We have to be very careful what they are really up to in Australia. many pose as being good Christians.

Socratease

CJ
"Hazza - as I understand it, "failed" asylum seekers are deported. What's your point?"

No worries CJ- I'm just not picking up the specific issue in the Asylum seeker debate, as not that many people seem to be actually mentioning specific aspects other than Australia being unfair on asylum seekers arriving by boat- which I think is a media beat-up.

As far as I can tell, the issues are failed applicants, or PENDING applicants spending unusual lengths of time in detainment before being let in- raising the issues of where to place them during this time, what kind of facility or environment to place them, and why the application period takes so long- and also what criteria we use to determine them safe or unsafe to house in the community, in a more quarantined facility or to be denied entry.

I'm just trying to get everyone else to analyze the points and start separating the issues- instead of "For refugees" or "against refugees"- and to actually elaborate based on the above considerations (or any of their own).