I would classify Ali in the "Women and children first"category. A historically acceptable standard of survival that should override the UNHCR determination of who is and who isn't. We are a compassionate nation and we broadcast our Nation to the World. Many have risked and lost their life seeking peace and and spent thousands to smugglers to do so and there are others who might well seek to destroy it. A group are already on trial for such an intention.

Methinks it would be best if Australia sent the crews of the asylum boats home to Indonesia for reasons that will appear obvious to an armchair thinker. But, the asylum seekers should be treated the same as if an Australian was caught in their country. What could be a fairer policy? Indeed, that fit men have run away having paid a lot of money to smugglers says a great deal about them if by doing so they,"contribute to the cultural diversity of our Nation". Is there no courage to use the money to band together to deal with their problem in their own country?

The answer may be to take more refugees from Indonesia. We should make an agreement with that country to take as many as possible to shorten the list. The boat people who reach this country sent back and placed at the end of that list.

Unfortunately many have come simply because Mr Rudd playing politics actually invited them.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/kevin-rudd-invited-asylum-seeker-boats-to-australia-says-people-smuggler/story-e6freon6-1225852441131

This is the most incompetent Government since Whitlam and now they want to take Health from the States.

The name Frank Brennan incites respect in my mind. However, since I saw what "God" allowed on 9/11 - how he sanctioned the death of almost 3,000 ordinary people - and how the religions of the world didn't get together and condemn violence I have lost all respect for religion.
As an ex Anglican I am distressed that right across the world there are so many conflicts that are in some way or another about religion.
I wonder what would happen if religion was banned from the world?
If wars ceased the Ali's of the world would not have lost parents to a Heavenly Being who promises seventy two virgins to suicide bombers.

Christmas Island, November 2009 and the Ali's of Today?

So the "recreational facilities are restricted and the tea and coffee a bit of a problem and so charges are likely to be laid and the Federal Police will intervene". It is both naive and quite pedestrian to think that anyone who does not understand English would care if they are prepared to accept death to set out on the journey at the start. “The pool cues are broken and the rioters will be threatened with deportation and not have their status considered”. Tut tut tut
Conditions are getting crowded? This will not do and broken pool cues?What will the UNHCR think of us? Well,after another 47 boats in 2010 we aint seen nothin’ yet. The brawls are just the beginning and should get the widest possible photo publicity with razor wire background countered with emphasis on due process and the priority of families with children. Laying charges? How very proper. it will mean nothing and a waste of time, money and resources but we will feel good about it, won’t we? being proper I mean, and we like to feel good about ourselves when we are being proper, don’t we?
Just what is it that we are afraid of Mr. Rudd? The Children?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/23/2751302.ht

Rudd is afraid of being a one term government and the people who respond to dog-whistling are very afraid of having to treat non-whites as their equals.

This article makes me bristle with very un-Christian indignation. It oozes self righteous libertarian prognostication; it drips with the “Authority” of humanitarian law and reeks of the reflected angst that seeks to make Australians feel guilt for the plight of refugees and personally responsible for any non-compliance with Convention and UNHCR laws.

By pointing to policies that are either compliant or non-compliant with the authors view, this whole “bleat” is then turned into a politically divisive issue, presumably to invoke political disadvantage against those politicians who do not subscribe to the Frank Brennan orthodoxy.

The case for “humanitarian” views requires us to suspend reality in order to adopt the guilt and as an Australian I reject this.

Most refugees are victims of failed states; almost exclusively they are citizens of countries oppressed by totalitarian dictatorships, primarily religious dictatorships although some are by military or so called benign “Royal Family” dictatorships. Australia has historically contributed to the liberation of these nations from oppression since WWI. There is no greater sacrifice than that made by our armed forces and their families.

Australia has offered trade to develop their economies; Australians have contributed through their taxes to development aid and Australians have dug deep into their personal funds to offer disaster relief. Australian NGO’s and Aid Agencies are courageously committed on the ground where it counts and we admire the commitment and mourn the loss of our defense forces trying to liberate such victims to this day.

Many Australian civilians have also become tragic victims of the same regimes that inflict misery on their own people. I’m personally sickened by our own Civil Rights and Humanitarian “industry” as it constantly exhorts Australians, under pain of being labeled racist, to ignore the reality of today’s world and accept more ideological “feel good” philosophies.

Those Australians who have given and suffered most to help these Nations for the past 90 years have every right to ask why are the “Professor Brennan’s” of this world, still fiddling with ideological “symptoms” rather than applying their undoubted intellectual skills to address the causes.

I thought we defeated facism in 1945?

spindoc: << Most refugees are victims of failed states; almost exclusively they are citizens of countries oppressed by totalitarian dictatorships >>

I'm glad you got that bit right. However, I don't understand why you want to punish those victims further by denying them the asylum to which they're entitled under the UN Convention.

Your comment oozes self righteous xenophobic obfuscation. Nobody's asking you to feel "guilt" - rather to exhibit a bit of compassion and human decency.

Why does anyone flee Afghanistan? Why indeed?

Corruption throughout Greater Asia where any benefits real or imaginary require "facilitations" of one kind or another. To the locals it is the distribution of wealth.
After 22 years in the region, I believe we should be wary of Afghanistan, or re-starting the food aid, or importantly, diverting what soil there is from the narco economy funding the terrorists as a means of stemming the exodus of more Alis.
Just how much of the material effort is likely to be diverted to the warlords as in Somalia ? .
It will be a long-term job limited by corruption, and at considerable risk, so why are we there is more the question than Why Ali Fled Afghanistan?. This is the breeding ground of an ideology of death and destruction that has spread rapidly.
Who could forget the chilling images of the innocents having their throat cut by those who believe that they will dwell in Paradise for having done so?. Al Queda’s success with the demoralized has demonstrated the necessity of our task and the Holsworthy Case reinforces thatperception. If the political, military or religious despots and terrorists can collectively lay claim to half of the World, then they will most certainly try for the other half.
But what of the hundreds of fit unattached males currently at Christmas Island? or the hundreds more that were escorted to the Island from August 26/09 or again yesterday ?, or hundreds more sheltered by corrupt local officials in small coastal villages in remote areas of Indonesia over which Central Government has no control?
Are they merely the fleetfooted of failing societies? or the beginning of something else. We have made it too attractive for both extremes to ignore. One would love the promise of peace and plenty and the other would love to destroy it.

You cannot tell Ali to go home and join the queue: there ain't one.

The existence of the refugee queue is most problematic for refugee advocates such as Professor Brennan. Refugee advocates see themselves as kind, compassionate and caring people, whose compassion is shown in their fanatical support of the asylum seekers arriving on Christmas Island, who they unfailingly and unquestioningly view as desperate refugees bravely fleeing persecution and torture.

The great majority of asylum seekers arriving at Christmas Island are able bodied men coming from Afghanistan. They are able to pay people smugglers many thousands of dollars (newspaper articles cite a cost of $15,000 per person) although the per capita income of Afghanistan is around $800 per year (about $2 per day). In contrast, the most desperate refugees in the world are single women and children living in squalid UNHCR refugee camps in Africa and Asia. They live in abject poverty and are forced to deal with hostile locals, an almost total lack of economic opportunities, frequent gender based violence, high rates of crime and food shortages. They are obviously unable to pay many thousands of dollars to people smugglers. Which of these two groups would you expect it would be logical for refugee advocates to extend their compassion to ?

Refugee advocates are compelled to deny the existence of a refugee queue as that would imply being misguided in their compassion, that is their compassion does not go to those most in need such as destitute and desperate women and children in UNHCR refugee camps, but instead goes to able bodied men having substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers. Refugee advocates just cannot admit to themselves or to others that for every asylum seeker arrival via people smugglers there is one less available place in Australia’s refugee resettlement program for refugees in much more desperate circumstance waiting in the refugee queue.

Habiba and her daughters are among a long queue of destitute refugees living in Pakistan as they go through the long process required by countries such as Australia, Canada and the US for asylum-seeker visas.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25451198-25837,00.html

franklin, that is as untrue now as when you first posted it (verbatim) on Tuesday, 30 March in another thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10213#166905

What is it, some kind of hate propaganda you've cut and pasted from a wingnut website?

Prof Brennan is correct: there is no queue. I agree that Australia needs to increase the number of refugees accepted from camps around the world. Of course, this can be done sustainably by cutting the skilled migration program and increasing our annual quota of humanitarian immigrants, rather than rejecting genuine refugees who arrive in Australia by boat.

I’m sure that Frank Brennan is well-intentioned.
However I have reasonable grounds for fearing that he is paving Australia’s road to hell.
Female genital mutilation;
Honour killings;
Child marriages;
Ethnic separatism;
Cousin-marriage and its attendant problems;
Over-representation in crime and incarceration statistics.
There is one religion which springs to mind when reflecting upon the fact that the above-mentioned phenomena are growing in all Western countries which have welcomed a particular “refugee” demographic.
Frank Brennan can’t seem to connect the dots but many others have.
These dot-connectors are often referred to as “racists”, although religion is not a race.
Go figure.
Most people just want a quiet life but also feel compassion for those less fortunate than themselves.
Sometimes, these impulses are mutually exclusive.
Terrorist threats, suicide bombers, race-based gang rapes, threatening ethnic enclaves which become no-go zones, relentless demands for special accommodation and permanently high rates of welfare dependence, etc, etc, cause compassion to make way for self-preservation.
Unless you’re a saint like Frank Brennan.
However, most of us are prepared to learn from history.
Many of us can see what is happening in other countries which have made the mistake of attempting to accommodate a certain brand of religious zealotry.
It makes the multicultural power-brokers feel good about themselves but at what cost to the recipient country?
We have also seen that the flip-side of the human rights machine is the punishment of heretics.
This experience teaches that one must be circumspect when dealing with Human Rights Commissions and their “independent” agents.
My comments should therefore be considered in the context of my assumption that Ali is a member of one of those evangelical churches of the religious right which have brought the above-mentioned problems to Australia.
We should ask ourselves whether we can afford to add to those problems.
Oops, I forgot.
That would be racist.

I don’t regard residents of other countries either as helpless victims of the evil white man or as childlike little brown brothers that we have to rescue. Development really should be easier for them than it was for our own ancestors. They know what is possible and what policies are necessary to achieve it, and can also learn from our mistakes and leapfrog over the obsolete. It took South Korea 35 years to go from being tied with Senegal for poorest country on earth to fully-fledged member of the First World, and it was about the same for Taiwan and Singapore. China has been making enormous progress in lifting people out of poverty. If other people can be determined to turn their situation around instead of relying on handouts ,from one generation to the next, there is a lot we can (and should) do to help, but if they persist in supporting corrupt and incompetent leaders, in denying justice to people in other ethnic or religious groups or in other social classes, and in keeping women barefoot, uneducated, and pregnant, there is nothing we can do about it, except to rigorously prevent their problems from becoming our problems, as far as possible.

Accolades to Frank Brennan for his tireless humanitarian work and of course we need to give refuge to the persecuted like Ali. Refugee intake is so far, a mere blip on the radar, however, I have gone from defending unauthorised refugees to pondering the global ramifications of the future.

One needs to look beyond the persecution of the defenceless and consider other factors in the long term. Afghanistan has a population of >33 million people and the population growth between 2002-2008, was 18%. Population density in Afghanistan is 60 people to one square kilometre and the land mass is a mere 647,000 square kilometres.

By comparison, African nations have a much larger growth rate than Afghanistan and that no doubt, is another very good reason why many Africans want out of Africa too.

Australia by comparison, is well off with nearly 8 million square kilometres of land mass and a population density of 2.7 per square kilometres, however, Australia also has 10 deserts and only about 7% of arable land which already feeds some 60 million people. Many of us believe that ecologically, Australia has reached a tipping point while others, who deny that global warming is anthropogenic, do not.

While the Muslim community should not be regarded as a homogenous society, a table prepared by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in 2004 showed that the Muslim birth rate in Australia is a significant factor towards Muslim population growth. It also showed that Muslims predominantly settled in Sydney and Melbourne and are increasing at an unprecedented birth rate from within.

It is obvious that the culture in poorer nations, despite poverty and persecution, is to have as many children as possible, which by default, creates very good reasons for people to seek a better life in less populated and more democratic countries but with a burgeoning global population, environmental, economic and persecuted refugees will significantly increase so where is it going to end or will it? Are we all to go down the plug hole together?

BEFORE WE GET TOO CARRIED AWAY ABOUT THE STORY ABOUT POOR ALY FROM AFGHANISTAN PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THERE ARE MANY MORE LIKE HIM IN VERY LARGE NUMBERS IN VERY LARGE REFUGEE CAMPS IN AFRICA AND WHO HAVE BEEN IN THOSE CAMPS FOR MUCH LONGER AND SUFFERED WORSE AND FOR MUCH LONGER THAN HE AND HIS FAMILY HAVE. WE SHOULD FIRST PLACE A QUOTA ON THOSE WHO ARE WORSE OFF VICTIMS IN AFRICAN REFUGEE CAMPS AND ONLY THEN GET AROUND TO PROCESSING THE APPLICATIONS OF AFGHANIS AND SRI LANKANS. NO ONE SHOULD THINK THAT THOSE WHO REACH A DESTINATION LIKE CHRISTMAS ISLAND OR AN ISLAND OFF AUSTRALIA SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY QUALIFY FOR VISAS OR CITIZENSHIP AND SETTLED IN AUSTRALIA. I AM GETTING QUITE FED UP WITH THE EASY ASSUMPTION OF THESE PEOPLE WHO ARENT REFUGEES IN THE SENSE THAT THE POOR AFRICANS ARE BUT ARE MORE STRIDENTLY DEMANDING AND POSE HUGE PROBLEMS IN AUSTRALIA.
BRING IN THE AFRICANS IN PREFERENCE TO AFGHANIS.

SOCRATEASE

Abbott, of course, is totally hypocritical about these refugees.

He bangs on about stopping the boats but they didn't. Not did they decide "when and how people entered this country". No, they just delayed them getting here by taxi servicing them around Australian waters in our naval vessels. But most of them still came here and are here now, angry and resentful.

There are some very obvious points people just fail to see or understand about Afghani refugees.

Firstly this continual rumour that they have, and pay, $16000 or thereabouts for their days in a leaky boat.

Having lived briefly in Afghanisatn years ago the truth is most of the population do not have enough money to even apply for a passport. That's why they don't have documents, they can't afford it.

But how, may I ask, do these people travel through all those countries and then produce all that money? It's impossible, they would be robbed, fleeced or jailed en route for others to get that money. Which I don't believe for a second they ever have anyway.

So, can someone explain to me where this money comes from? If they had $16K they'd fly in which is a lot cheaper. This whole thing makes no sense at all.

There are a couple of easy steps that will either totally stop the
boats or reduce them to single numbers a year.
Put the crew in gaol for 20 years, no parole.
Automatically send back all those that arrive from Indonesia without
their passports, after all they must have had them to reach Indonesia.
If they will not reveal their country of origin, or it is not obvious,
then put them in gaol until they do speak up.

If the crew will not get a six month holiday in Darwin, they will not
undertake the voyage in the first place.

CJ Morgan, what a delight you are to work with. My post highlighted the fact that the “causes” are failed states and that the “symptoms” are massive refugee migrations. I made absolutely no reference to “how” Australia should deal with refugees.

What I did suggest is that perhaps we should apply our intellectual skills and policy to the causes rather than the effects; otherwise we will indeed be left with the perpetual frustrations of dealing with the symptoms at the emotional and ideological level.

I also mentioned the imposition of “guilt” and being tagged as “racist”. In spite of making absolutely no reference to how Australia should deal with refugees, you tag me as “xenophobic” invent a reference I did not make to wanting << to punish those victims further by denying them the asylum to which they're entitled under the UN Convention. >>

You then state that <<Nobody's asking you to feel "guilt">> but proceed to imply that I wish to “punish” refugees and that I lack “compassion and human decency”. Are these false accusations you have invented intended to make me feel “guilty” even though I have not even committed the sins to which you refer?

I created a number of “boxes” that define our Civil Rights and Humanitarian “industry”, you jumped into every single one of them. I don’t think you read the content of my post, I think you just did what you always do, feel the emotion.

“Refugee Advocacy”, like so many of the worlds “Appeasement Industries”, are part of the problem and not the solution. By encouraging our politicians to apply ideological feel good policies, we let them off the hook from their responsibilities to fix the problem and allow them to continue fiddling with vote catching yet meaningless ideologies.

Those wishing to “do something” are guilty of diverting political attention away from solutions. I also suspect that knowing this full well, the mantra of compassion is used to cover their own complicity in the additional misery caused by years of useless and ineffective policies.

What refugee advocacy seeks to avoid, it creates, misery

Always a pleasure to keep you honest, spindoc. Yes, you're right that you disingenuously avoided actually mentioning Australia's treatment of refugees, which is why it is my sacred duty as an (honorary) member of the "human rights industry" to draw attention to your dog-whistle.

While I'm impressed at your faith in Australia's ability to solve the international problems that are the root causes of people becoming refugees, I'm a little more circumspect. Personally, I'd rather that our politicians desisted from refugee-bashing and instead promoted compassion, decency and fulfilling our humanitarian obligations instead of finding devious excuses to avoid them.

Of course I support increasing our national efforts to ameliorate human suffering in other parts of the world, but that's absolutely no reason to try and avoid our legal and moral responsibilities to legitimate refugees who seek asylum in Australia right now.

CJM, I do wish you were able to deal with facts rather than just emotion. I pointed this out in my last post and you did it again, why?

I said “I made absolutely no reference to “how” Australia should deal with refugees.” You turned this into an admission by me that I’d been disingenuous by excluding my opinion. You said << Yes, you're right that you disingenuously avoided actually mentioning Australia's treatment of refugees, >> CJ, I said nothing of the sort. But it is what your emotions “thought” I said.

You ducked all the other points I raised with you, is that because you only see the emotion rather than the actual content?

You seem to adopt two strategies; one is to change the facts in order to facilitate your emotional responses, or two, that which you cannot or will not answer is labeled spin. I’m sure you have more than this to contribute and I’m convinced there is great intellect behind your real views so why deliberately distort them with emotive responses?

"You seem to adopt two strategies; one is to change the facts in order to facilitate your emotional responses, or two, that which you cannot or will not answer is labeled spin."

Oh the irony.

"“Refugee Advocacy”, like so many of the worlds “Appeasement Industries”, are part of the problem and not the solution."

Oh absolutely. It couldn't possibly be the fault of the people who commit crimes against civilians. So when the Sri Lankan Government pays thugs to beat up or kill Sinhalese journalists you can't blame them - blame the refugee advocates instead. When Sri Lankan soldiers rape Tamil girls and murder young Tamil boys they can't be blamed for that - no its the fault of that pesky human rights industry. Damn them and their concerns for rule of law, order, peace and security.

Better yet, lets look the other way. Lets deny the victims any hope of refuge. That'll teach those refugee advocates. It won't appease anybody. Well, it might appease the rapists and murderers who continue to act with impunity. Maybe we don't take war crimes and human rights seriously enough.

Now where is Captain Dragan again??

Religious Professors are the last people to I wish to listen to. When JESUS was alive, World Population was hardly 1 billion!
Throughout history, Countries evolved slowly. We Australians are not being allowed this stable evolution, with over-rapid migration from so many differing races, religions, ethics, moral ideas and physical environments.
WE are FULL. Let our present mix get used to each other. Stop Politicians and Business Interests screaming that we "MUST INCREASE OUR GDP",(GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCTION.) It is a failed PONZI scheme that continually increases WORLD OVERPOPULATION.
2 billion in 1950 now 7 billion, in another 60 years, 18 billion!
More than a third of species assessed in a major international biodiversity study are threatened with extinction, scientists have warned.
These included 21% of all known mammals, 30% of amphibians, 70% of plants and 35% of invertebrates.
At what point will society truly respond to this growing crisis?
Professor Jonathan Baillie,
Zoological Society of London.
This is caused entirely by the increase in Human Population!
50% of these were in AUSTRALIA.

STOP THIS WHIMPERING MUSH. In 1951 the world was trying to recover from WARS that killed over 60 million people and left at least 10 million homeless.
THAT IS NOT THE CASE NOW, therefore: The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR; established December 14, 1950)
SRI-LANKA should be asked to take responsibility for TAMILS. As for IRAQIS, AFGHANIS and PAKISTANIS it is impossible for a country like Australia to solve their problems. AS for ‘little ALI’, there are women and children in our own AUSTRALIA living right now in worse conditions. ALL the RELIGIONS in the World have not been able to solve these situations.
AUSTRALIA IS JUST INVITING MORE TROUBLE swamping our nation with the World’s problems.

To Bazz,

Why waste all that money mate when a few bullets would solve it? Surely that would be your preferred option as then we don't pay for them in jail, court and don't have to pay to fly them home, the non crew that is. Come on, be brave and say what you really mean.

Don't take into account the fact that other countries might return the favour and start jailng more Aussies, and for no reason other than because we take your advice. You are not worthy of the title Bazz as you are not a real Australian. From now on you will be simply Barry.

Frankly Barry, you are a complete idiot and I wish you would take a leaky boat to another island far away.

To the rest of you, so you can't explain where all this money comes from can you? It's because they don't pay that price at all. It's a media invention. A farce, a joke to make the refugees look like frauds. The real frauds fly in.

Wake up and stop listening to your racism and Liberal/National heart.

David Jennings, “going in to bat” on CJM’s behalf is admirable but your response is exposed to the same criticism. You have totally ignored what was “actually” said and responded to what your emotions “thought” was said.

The case I made was specifically that “By encouraging our politicians to apply ideological feel good policies, we let them off the hook from their responsibilities to fix the problem and allow them to continue fiddling with vote catching yet meaningless ideologies.”

I am not denying the tragic circumstances of refugees, their terrible plights or the inhumane acts perpetrated against them by their own governments. Nor am I condoning any breaches by any government, including ours, of the conventions signed. What I am opposing is the hypocrisy and schizophrenia that besets the appeasement industries.

You and CJM speak much about compassion, rights and the rule of law. This absolutely does not entitle either of you to imply that those of us who wish to see the “causes” addressed are less compassionate.

Your emotional appeal addressing the terrible crimes against refugees is not lost, it’s just counterproductive. You hit the nail on the head, albeit unintentionally, when you said sarcastically, << It couldn't possibly be the fault of the people who commit crimes against civilians.>>. Yes it could, yes it is, yes it is a crime and yes that is the whole point.

Now, what difference has constant western refugee advocacy made to those committing these crimes for the last 60 years? Diddly Squat!

These despotic dictatorships take our Aid, they abuse or slaughter our NGO and agency volunteers, they terrorize their own people, they terrorize neighboring nations and they terrorize us. To add insult to injury, where the west has intervened to try to improve the lives of these hapless peoples, our own “appeasement industries” howl at us from within.

As I said, this is the hypocrisy and schizophrenia.

Continued:

Continued:

The UN, IMF, ITO, WHO et al, are the established mechanisms and agencies charged with the responsibility and authority to put these failed States under administration, just as we do with failed companies in order to protect public interests. These are global political agencies charged with fixing the sources of these problems because that is why they were created.

By drawing the focus away from their political responsibilities through howling advocacy at the local “symptoms” end, we are letting these political agencies of the hook. The UN itself has seized upon precisely this mechanism to harness global advocacy and further protect itself from the imperative to act, that agency is called the UNHCR.

The world operates on the principle of “fix it at the source”, this is enshrined in the International Standards (ISO 9000) principles. It will never be perfect but it does acknowledge that a problem that is not addressed at the source requires a tenfold cost/effort to fix later. The seemingly endless refugee problem is a tragic example.

Advocacy focuses its efforts on the “symptoms”. It howls at us for our lack of compassion, accuses people of being racist and xenophobic. How does this help refugees?

IMHO, the number of boat people currently is trivial to Australia however; strong advocacy is making the wider population nervous because we are being vilified for not exhibiting the same response as advocacy. Not only is it wrong to bully the Australian public, it is wrong to reinforce the symptoms.

David, there is enormous energy and compassion within refugee advocacy, but it needs to focus on those who can fix it. It needs to stop putting its energy into the 90% symptoms and direct energy at the 10% causal factors and those charged with resolution, the UN.

Abusing fellow Australians will only diminish advocacy impact, release politicians at all levels from their responsibilities and allow despotic dictators to continue generating refugees.

When the Professor Brennan’s of this world “camp out” at the UN we will know they understand the real issues and are serious about doing something.

Of course, there's no emotionalism in spindoc's disingenuous efforts to divert attention from Australia's treatment of asylum seekers, is there? All of this bleating about "appeasement industries" and "howling advocacy" is clearly based on extensive research and dispassionate analysis, as opposed to to hysterical and mendacious hyperbole.

However, it is nice to see, buried deeply within spindoc's ranting sophistry, acknowledgement both that asylum seekers are generally genuine refugees and that Australia should meet its obligations under the UN Convention.

Spindoc,
you are so correct in all you post. These bleeding hearts are like do-gooders seriously searching for the clean end of the turd to hold it to examine it closely. No attempt to see the other side of the issue. We have no heart. But we do see the damage they would inflict on the rest of us Aussiies. Doesnt bother them at all.

socratease

Thanks to socratease for demonstrating the effectiveness of spindoc's dog-whistle. Socratease praises spindoc for being "so correct in all you post", then whines about "turds" and the "damage" that will be caused - while missing spindoc's admission that "the number of boat people currently is trivial to Australia".

Excellent dog-whistling from the self-styled spin doctor, if socratease's adherence to the script is any indication.

Everyone has ideas to stop the boats, but there are very few ideas that work.
Pegasus however, can only think of abuse for someone who makes a suggestion.
Abuse is the resort of someone without answers.
As far as the money goes, do you believe that it is an invention of the media ?
Do you really think they sacrifice the boat and the crews do it out of
the goodness of their heart ?

Really ? And you call me an idiot !
It appears that you and others are unaware of what happened in Europe.
Illegal immigrants turned up in Italy in small freighters with a
couple thousand standing on the decks.
How long before we see that here ?

Franklin, with comments like

'Refugee advocates see themselves as kind, compassionate and caring people, whose compassion is shown in their fanatical support of the asylum seekers arriving on Christmas Island, who they unfailingly and unquestioningly view as desperate refugees bravely fleeing persecution and torture,'

how can anyone take you seriously? Very few advocates would call for people to be accepted without a process and most agree on sending back people who are not refugees.

As for the people on boats not being deserving take the example of a young woman held in Woomera for a year with her mother, baby and sister after arriving by boat. When her father died and her husband taken by the Taliban in Afghanistan they lived in their storeroom until they could escape over the border. They ended up on the streets in Malaysia and another country after fleeing then from Pakistan when relatives of her dead husband wanted to take the baby, as was their legal right. You just seem to have a stereotypical image of people arriving on boats.

As a so called refugee advocate I don't see myself as compassionate and caring, although I try to be (why try for the alternative?) and I don't know anyone with that self view. Refugee advocates are not a homogenous group of people, some are more radical than others, moderates get squashed in the middle, some are not involved with refugees and just have loud opinions, most support refugees in all situations, not just boat arrivals, and I can assure you that some can be greatly lacking in compassion and caring. Like others on that 'side' of the debate you seem to take on a victim status, when someone on the advocacy side expresses their belief you take it as a personal attack.

I am interested to know why you spend so many hours posting on a subject you feel very negatively about? I am asking that question with genuine interest - I find it hard to understand a person devoting so much time to being 'anti' particular human beings.

"These despotic dictatorships take our Aid, they abuse or slaughter our NGO and agency volunteers, they terrorize their own people, they terrorize neighboring nations and they terrorize us. To add insult to injury, where the west has intervened to try to improve the lives of these hapless peoples, our own “appeasement industries” howl at us from within."

Yep that's a pretty emotional response.

"As I said, this is the hypocrisy and schizophrenia."

No kidding.

I'd back CJ response and I'd echo Susan's reply to Franklin. As Susan said, Why spend so much time on something you feel so negatively about?

Why Rahim is fleeing Pakistan

I got to hear of Rahim through this Australian newspaper report : http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/afghan-refugees-in-no-mood-for-turning/story-e6frg6n6-1225852510283
(You’ll have to excuse the journalist , she does her best to plaster us with the you’ve-got-to-help-me-my-life-is-at-stake PC refugee narrative, but fortunately the truth does shine through the cracks.)

We are told Rahim was born in Pakistan after his mother fled Russian bombing –and we can only take this on trust.

Rahim has not experienced the Russians, he has not experienced the Taliban, and he has not even experienced the idiosyncrasies of the current regime. He lives in what the journalist refers to as the Afghan refugee community, a “squalid” refugee camp.
[Explanatory note 1: the term “Afghan refugee community” is misleading, you need to ditch Australian perceptions. “Afghan” covers a potpourri of ethnic groups, few of whom are restricted to Pakistan or Afghanistan. They overlap and overflow borders, and have for a long time moved with seasons back and forth, have sourced marriage partners from either side of the border, and usually feel closer affinity to a clan or language group than any concept of nation.]
[ Explanatory note 2: The term “squalid refugee camp” is misleading, as the poorer suburbs of most of the subcontinents cities are not materially much better off –in the main it’s are an artificial division to help UN & Pakistan play funding games: “the higher the number of refugees in a country that is reported, the higher the requests for aid-money can be”– Ed Giles ].

Since 2001 “Three million Afghans have returned home” (and though the journalist repeats the advocates apologia that this involved many in “ violent struggles over land and resources” , the fact that few have backtracked speaks volumes –they can’t all be at bottom of wells!). On his part Rahim, despite his relative untroubled history, has not the slightest inclination to return to Afghanistan , and why should he, for as pointed out above many of his ethnic group have traditionally resided in Pakistan . However, Rahim isn’t inclined to stay in Pakistan either. He aspires to translocated to OZ.

When interviewed, Rahim & his colleagues don’t raise any persecution issues. Some mention the war, sure, but as one later declares “There’s peace in Kabul and other big cities but all the people here come from villages and rural area” .
Their main concerns seem elsewhere :
1) “no money to bring up [their] children” ( despite which , at the age of 25 Rahim already has four kids, and even stranger , only eight months after losing his seed capital in a failed people smuggling venture he’s confidently talking of having money for a further attempt --clearly his case is not one of those life-long-savings-efforts, we keep getting told about!), &
2) Rahim ( especially) is “not prepared to sit around and wait for his country of birth to push him back to a country he has never known”
Which seems rather incongruous , given – he is prepared to travel to Oz, a country “he has never known”, whose language he doesn’t know, and whose culture is alien.

An Inspector Frost or Barnaby and maybe even a Chief Wiggum would see through the concoction & pull the alibi to pieces --- but not so an Australian reporter.

But rest assured , by the time Rahim gets to Indonesia, and gets the opportunity to tell his story to some overly trusting refugee advocate or UN official , he will (with the help of the people smugglers coaching college, and tips passed on to him by kin in OZ) by that time, likely have compiled a saga of horrible experiences in Afghanistan to recount: he will have remembered relatives (he never previously knew he had) who were murdered or who mysteriously vanished; he will have tormenting nightmares of his village being torched by the Taliban; and he might even have changed his religion and identify –making himself a more marketable, Hazara

Yea, I might not feel inclined to tell (Brennans) Ali to return home to join the queue, but hey, I sure as hell feel inclined to tell Rahim to ram it .
But guess what! our namby-pamby processes are likely to pass BOTH for settlement in OZ –because they can’t discern the difference! ( and our namby-pambyitis is likely to get a lot worse if we get a Bill Of Rights)

Frank Brennan has made much of various Australian govts narrowing of their interpretation of “coming directly”.
What he didn’t show was refugee advocates & claimants stretching of the UN definition of refugee.

Previously the presence of unrest somewhere in ones country of origin didn’t necessarily entitle one for refugee status --especially when that unrest was largely confined to one portion of the country .But nowadays we’re seeing that merely originating from a country that has a region of unrest almost assures ones acceptance as a bona fide refugee, in Oz.

And, we are increasingly seeing such excuses as the “struggle to educate or feed [your] kids”, or “squalid living conditions” or heavy levels of crime , or rising/falling, water levels being held up by advocates as sound and fair reason for seeking asylum, anywhere

I have for years been a strong advocate for compliance with treaties regarding refugees, to limit our contribution to families, more particularly women and children. I do not see that any single men fit any definition of a refugee because they have a traditional role to act for change before taking the easy path. It is this part of character that I cynically refer as "adding to the cultural diversity of the Nation" by running away - not my observation, but the warm and fuzzy rhetoric of the Greens and those who would never allow these people in their home as an alternative to Christmas Island.

Speed up the transfer of families. It is through the children that there is a faster and more effective integration into an otherwise strange lifestyle. Suddenly, without a tribal influence on their well being, where females are not brought up uneducated ,barefoot, and pregnant from about 14. the age of "consent".

Susan M & David Jennings,
You ask why some people spend so much time on something they feel so negatively about.
I believe that with all the agitators, lobbyists, assorted ideologues and captains of grievance industries who are trying to impose their perspectives on this country's people and its government, many people feel powerless.
They are unable to stop these relentless juggernauts, which they perceive to be dragging their country down.
So they do what they can to express their opposition,
even though they often resent the time it takes.
Of course it would be very convenient for you all if your opponents were silenced.
But you should consider that the grievance industries already have the advantage.
Most people do not get paid to agitate for a living.
They mostly work real, productive jobs so that they can afford to pay taxes to support the agitators and ideologues.

Proxy, thanks for the answer. But don't you think that's all a bit paranoid? I find the battle for victim status politically interesting but strangely illogical. This country has problems but we are not in danger of being dragged down to anywhere. As bad as anything gets here we have welfare, we have food coupons, medicare - although people do fall through the cracks the wider picture is not bleak.

In 1988 the Fitzgerald report on immigration noted that, 'in a time of change… immigration frequently becomes a target. When there are forces moving in our society which people seem not to be able to identify, or to understand, or to halt, immigration as a cause seems easier to pinpoint, the change it brings becomes negatively perceived, and it is felt that by manipulating immigration this way or that way we can avoid having economic or social problems.' I believe that there is a negative obsession with boat arrivals because, as you say, people feel powerless, but their reasons for feeling powerless are more personal, or result from natural change in the country and the world, and have nothing to do with refugees. The boat arrivals are just an easy visible target.

Frank Brennan has been a strong critic of refugee policy but he is not radical - he has supported offshore processing on Christmas Island - so some of the comments on here are strange. There are many who seem willing to twist the facts on this issue for party political reasons and that to me is the worst of it.

(continued from last) It is actually very hard to find people who have a balanced well thought through position against asylum seekers that doesn't have at its base either politics or feelings of powerlessness about other issues, and obviously there is hatred and prejduce against outsiders that is evident in every country. And everyone has an opinion, even if they don't understand the complexties and detail of the issue people feel justified in making statements that are not factual. The amount of incorrect information that has been put out there in the past decade on this issue is extraordinary.

If you are suggesting that advocates for refugees are making any money out of this issue I think you have got the wrong end of the stick on that one. It comes at great cost (financial and other) to engage in advocacy and support for vulnerable people, whether they be refugees, homeless, disabled or other (and I'm not talking about people who carp from the sidelines with opinions from all sides). I just wish some of the strong energy that some people have that is used with such negativity could be channelled into creating positive things for this country.

Proxy you should consider dropping the "r" in your username. It would then be more in harmony with your views.

jjplug you should consider dropping the "jj" in your username,
subsituting "pull the" and then acting on what would be very good advice.

Susan,
<<I just wish some of the strong energy that some people have that is used with such negativity could be channelled into creating positive things for this country.>>
What you perceive as negativity is, in fact, the positive desire not to "create negative things for this country".
Shouldn't we learn from history?
Shouldn't we learn from what is happening in Europe -

"some cultures fit better into Western societies than others. All of Europe is currently struggling to integrate Muslims but this endeavor seems to be impossible. According to the Danish police and the Danish Bureau of Statistics more than 70 percent of all crimes in the Danish capital are committed by Muslims. Our national bank recently published a report stating that a Muslim foreigner costs more than 2 million Danish kroner (300,000 euros) in federal social assistance on average, caused by the low participation in the work force. On top of this, we have to add many additional types of social welfare that unemployed people can receive in our country: expenses in connection with interpreters, special classes in school – 64 percent of school children with Muslim parents cannot read and write Danish properly after 10 years in a Danish school – social work, extra police etc."
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=36a_1270930892

To learn from others mistakes is a positive thing, not a negative thing.

I should clarify that, whereas the above quote relates to Muslims in Europe, the principle also holds true in Australia where we have our own problems integrating those members of evangelical churches of the religious right, as previously stated.

We CAN learn from history.
We CAN learn from the European experience.
We don't need to create problems for future generations of Australians.
We just need to remove our ideological blinkers.

We need to be reminded again that if all these asylum seekers were really seeking asylum as they claim then they shouldnt have to sail around the world picking and choosing a land of their preference. The Afghanis have come through Malaysia and Indonesia,both culturally closer to them than a non-Muslim country like Australia. Why have they rejected those possible asylums? No CentreLink and social benefits?
Neither Malaysia nor Indonesia will have thoise whoarent prepared to work which is why they arent offering anyone social benefits.Everyone has to work there.
What does it say about all those wealthy Islamic states that have significantly remained tight-lipped and silent about caring for their brothers? How have Palestinian refugees been treated in neighbouring Islamic states? How have these refugees behaved in Jordan when they were offered asylum many years ago? They very nearly overthrew the government in a coup that was thwarted by Hashemite horsemen who rode in from the dersert to protect their King.

we certainly have a huge problem on our hands now.
There are over 20,000 of them in Indonesia waiting to get in. Australistan is their preferred destination.
Oh wll.Roll out the red carpet.

Socratease,
You ask:
"The Afghanis have come through Malaysia and Indonesia,both culturally closer to them than a non-Muslim country like Australia. Why have they rejected those possible asylums? No CentreLink and social benefits?"
The answer is in Frank Brennan's article:
"to be rightly characterised as an adequate country for asylum, proven refugees need also to be extended the usual rights of refugees, including work, health, education and social welfare."
Apparently, according to Brennan, people fleeing any country in the world, have the same entitlements as Australian citizens and no less will suffice.
Furthermore, you're a racist if you don't agree.
Clearly, he is stating that Malaysia and Indonesia are inadequate countries for asylum.
Describing our nearest neighbours as inadequate is demeaning and provocative.
This sounds very much like a racial slur to me.
I hope he will apologise to these countries.
Or maybe they're just happy to pass the buck?

Do you find that dishonesty helps with your arguments Proxy? I guess in the absence of reason you'll have to mae do with stretching the truth. Indonesia and Malaysia won't let the asylum seekers work, buy property or have any type of citizen status. Neither country is a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Acknowledging that Poxy isn't provocative or 'racist' its just telling the truth.

I think we'd be better off with more refugees and less people like you. At least we can believe what they say.

I like the Philippines principle of reciprocity. It seems very fair to consider that applications by foreigners to live, work and do business in the Philippines are the same for Filipinos deciding the same for themselves in other countries.

That was a great quote from the Fitzgerald report, Susan M. I don't think much has changed since 1988, except for the rise of Islamophobia. As we see in some of the more execrable comments here, fear and loathing of Islam provides a good cover for good old fashioned Aussie racism. Mind you, it doesn't explain the disdain for Tamil refugees.

jjplug - KMB/HermanYutic/Poxy is just the latest sock puppet of a longtime OLO troll. I choose not to feed it ;)

pull the plug,

<<Indonesia and Malaysia won't let the asylum seekers work, buy property or have any type of citizen status. Neither country is a signatory to the Refugee Convention. Acknowledging that Poxy isn't provocative or 'racist' its just telling the truth.>>

So Indonesia and Malaysia escape your opprobrium,
but if I were to advocate that illegal immigrants shouldn't be allowed to work, buy property or have any type of citizen status,
I would clearly be a racist in your eyes.

Why the double standards jj?
Go on, just say it:
"Indonesia and Malaysia are racist, just like Proxy".
It will ease the cognitive dissonance.

But then you would have called non-whites racist!
What a dilemma you've created for yourself.

I haven't called Indonesia or Malaysia racist. I haven't even called you a racist. As I said before you have a problem with the truth Poxy and its quite unattractive.

I think CJ is right, Poxy you are a troll ... and an internet one as well!

Debate is pretty pointless on this. Yes we can learn from history and there are many paths we have been down and should never repeat, the White Australia policy being one, the Pacific Solution and forcing boats back at sea are others. I notice that Tony Abbott has even slighly changed his position on turning boats around, he now says he would do this when necessary and 'safe'. Which means he wouldn't do it either becasue it is never safe, people will drown.

What has a discussion about Muslim people got to do with boat arrivals? I don't come onto these forums enough to see how extreme some people's views are but it is interesting to see where you are coming from. But where are the reasoned positions against boat arrivals that contain facts?

Creating a country that discriminates against people based on their race or religion is not in anyone interests, aside from it being abhorrent to most Australians. Australia takes migrants from a range of backgrounds anyway and the refugee component of Immigration is tiny.

I have friends and people I have supported from all backgrounds and religions, they are not all the same just because they follow the same religions, Muslims do not all hold the same beliefs (to state the obvious) and they come from very different cultures. I think you need to do some background searching to understand the religion you want to disucss. And as CJ Morgan says, what has this got to do with Tamil Hindus arriving from Sri Lanka or the Christians from other countries who are arriving? That's why the debate never makes sense about boats because anti boat people are actually using this issue to talk about something else. (contd next post)

(contd) When I mentioned how much incorrect information was out there I wasn't asking for more. Asylum seekers don't have work rights in Malaysia and Indonesia - this is an interesting recent report on Malaysia http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/22763/ - it's not hard to understand why people wouldn't stay there.

I can only guess that people who are against boat arrivals would be the first to get on a boat if they were in the same situation. I honestly think that if you already find life in Australia difficult then you would not tolerate for a minute what people arriving on boats go through.

Further to Susan M's latest comments, and in the context of the disinformation peddled by our resident haters, I think this document would be educational for some and useful for others in countering the usual lies posted here about asylum seekers and refugees:

"Australia & asylum seekers: The myths and the facts"

http://www.getup.org.au/files/campaigns/asylum_myths_factsheet.pdf

Thankyou CJ, for sharing with us where you go when you’re thinking cap just isn’t working : GetUp’s New Age Catechism.
A few words in response.

Apologia 1
“In Australia, asylum seekers must PROVE they are refugees before they are granted a visa.”
Answer: ROFL .Too ridiculous to merit a response.
Apologia 2
“On (a per capita) basis Australia’s fair share for the first 6 months of 2009 should be 4,197 rather than the 3,666 [on] gross domestic product (GDP) – Australia falls to 24th place when ranked by asylum seeker intake per size of GDP.”
Answer: No matter what Australia’s intake was, there would still be Oliver’s like you bleating “More please”
Apologia 3
“The vast majority of asylum seekers arrive in Australia by air”
Answer: Clamp down on all avenues of illegal entry, air & water.
Apologia 4
Amounts to: Australia’s not a soft target, because every other AFFLUENT western country is also a target.
Answer: I wonder why all those desperate refugees would by-pass the intermediate poorer countries to reach all those distant, but affluent western countries.The knee jerk reaction from advocates is “but those intermediate/countries-of-first-call are not signatories”—except that in the case of Africa, most countries are signatories ---yet, still, the illegal’s by-pass them to go to Europe --funny that!
Apologia 5
They are not a economic/social burden argument.
Answer: This argument can be summarised as: “They are not a burden because we say they’re not”. GetUp, mischievously, confuses immigration & refugee policy.
And, you mighty like to have a re-read of Proxy’s post above: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10282#168326
Apologia 6
The refugee intake poses little terrorist risk.
Answer: Funny, I wonder how the below got past our stringent tests & checks!
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2715237.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/04/2645846.htm

Thanks again CJ . One suggestion though, GetUp should take a leaf out of Amazons book and print this little caption at the bottom of their publication:
“Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought “
1) http://www.mugglenet.com/
2) http://www.grimmfairytales.com/en/main

Yeah well - as one of OLO's more regular haters, Horus of course wouldn't let facts get in the way of the bigoted narrative he spends so much time fabricating.

Be afraid, Horus. Be very afraid. It suits you.

Susan M, when your comments are deconstructed most of your statements amount to little more than subtle denigration of those who have opinions differing from yours.

“Proxy, thanks for the answer. But don't you think that's all a bit paranoid? I find the battle for victim status politically interesting but strangely illogical.”

“I believe that there is a negative obsession with boat arrivals because, as you say, people feel powerless, but their reasons for feeling powerless are more personal, or result from natural change in the country and the world, and have nothing to do with refugees. The boat arrivals are just an easy visible target.”

“.. some of the comments on here are strange. There are many who seem willing to twist the facts on this issue for party political reasons and that to me is the worst of it.”

“And everyone has an opinion, even if they don't understand the complexities and detail of the issue people feel justified in making statements that are not factual.”

“I just wish some of the strong energy that some people have that is used with such negativity could be channeled into creating positive things for this country.”

“It is actually very hard to find people who have a balanced well thought through position against asylum seekers that doesn't have at its base either politics or feelings of powerlessness about other issues, and obviously there is hatred and prejudice against outsiders that is evident in every country.”

To Susan M those with differing opinions seem to be “paranoid”, “looking for victim status”, “feel powerless, ” twist the facts”, “do not understand the complexities and detail of the issue”, “make statements that are not factual”, “do not have balances well thought through positions, and have “hatred and prejudice against outsiders”.

Just stop and think for a minute Susan M. Are you so sure that almost none of those who oppose asylum seekers arriving via people smugglers are not as sincere as you in their beliefs. And are you so sure that they cannot offer logical and reasoned arguments in support of their positions.

franklin's post is just a little rich, coming from someone whose only previous contribution to the discussion has been a verbatim re-posting of a mendacious comment s/he made in another thread entirely.

<< are you so sure that they cannot offer logical and reasoned arguments in support of their positions. >>

Perhaps franklin can offer a "logical and reasoned argument" in support of his position, but it would be greatly enhanced if it wasn't based on lies and distortions.

Franklin, so why is it that you spend so much of your life on forums writing about people you feel antagonistically towards? These are people who don't have any platform to reply to your claims against them.

The answers that were provided above, on your behalf, about the need to police the juggernauts dragging the country down and warnings about Muslims, do seem more than a bit paranoid to me (I'm not being subtle). And claims that more than 20,000 people are waiting in Indonesia to come here, for example, are just untrue. Latest figures are at about 4,000 in Indonesia. Are these also your views?

You again make clear that you want to claim the victim role but if you can move past that I would be interested to know why you feel the need to give so much of your life to this. At least the others who have posted on here seem to be unapologetically honest about where they are coming from on this. You obviously don't have to answer if this is a private issue.

Susan M,
go to -
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Pages/TheList.htm
click on "This list" and spend some time reading it.
Scroll down and see if you can see a pattern in the lists going back nearly 10 years.
Now imagine those lists going back 1400 years.
If you can then brush this off with "warnings about Muslims do seem more than a bit paranoid to me (I'm not being subtle)"
and not recognise that, maybe, just maybe, we have a special problem here that deserves further investigation,
then there can be no possibility of reasoned discussion.

Poxy you are more of a threat to Australia than any Muslim person. There are so many fine and upstanding Muslim Australians. And then theres you .... yuck

buttplug,
If I am more of a threat to Australia than Benbrika and his cronies,
why have they been incarcerated while I remain free?
I believe that dhimmis are dangerously delusional.

Susan M, your comments mistakenly make a number of assumptions about me, although you actually lack any factual basis for your assumptions. It seems most bewildering that you want to claim that you know how much time I spend on one of the many various activities of my life, and your assumption on me wanting to claim the victim role has also left me most bewildered. I can sense that you feel a need to denigrate those having opinions differing from your own, perhaps to confirm in your own mind that opinions disimilar to your own do not count for much. I assume that my comments have really got under your skin, I guess nobody - most especially a caring and compassionate refugee advocate - likes to be told that their compassion is misguided. Ah well, I can understand that to some extent.

So, in the spirit of your comments, let me make some personal assumptions about you. To me, your comments seem to be designed more towards denigrating those with opinion differing to your own than presenting a reasoned argument. I can sense that you feel a need to feel morally superior to those having opinions differing from your own, most particularly on the asylum seeker issue. How else can it be explained why you feel the need to label those with differing opinions to yours to be “paranoid”, “looking for victim status”, “feel powerless”, twist the facts”, “do not understand the complexities and detail of the issue”, “make statements that are not factual”, “do not have balanced well thought through positions”, and have “hatred and prejudice against outsiders”. Ah well, I can also understand that to some extent.

Anyway, you have achieved your purpose and you have sidetracked me from making a comment on the actual issue at hand. And I do regret spending “so much of my life” (a few minutes) writing these comments.

Franklin, yes we know all that, you've said it all before, about me, about others. You don't like refugee advocates, yes we know, we're all the same. If you want to look at derogatory remarks look no further than your own words. But can't you just get over it?

You do keep positioning yourself in what you are writing as the victim of, strangely, refugee advocates. They are all derogatory people, they don't listen to anyone else's views, they see themselves as morally superior, and on and on... well each to their own.

If you don't want to answer my questions that's fine - it was a genuine question of interest but I understand it may be a sensitve subject. I have no assumptions about 'whoever' you are, as far as I know you don't work in the refugee sector, but maybe you work in a related area which makes it of more interest to you, who knows. Feel free to reveal if you want, or not, and good luck with your future in anti people on boats advocacy. I am out of time on this one.

You cannot tell Ali to go home and join the queue: there ain't one.

The following are exerts from an interview by Mark Colvin of the ABC of the spokesperson “Alex” of the asylum seekers at Merak.

MARK COLVIN: You know that there are probably 20 million people who are refugees around the world. Why should you be at the head of the queue?

ALEX: Me and my people are not saying that we should be at the head of the queue. All that we're trying to say is that our case is serious.

MARK COLVIN: But you know that there are thousands of people in refugee camps in Africa, in the Middle East, in Pakistan, all those regions, who are waiting and because they don't have the $15,000 necessary they can't jump the queue. Are you queue jumpers?

ALEX: We are not queue jumpers, we are just people getting out of a dangerous situation in our country at the moment, and if we had to wait in a queue that would cost our life.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2718323.htm

The following is an exert from an editorial in the Australian dated April 17, 2010 entitled “How to Decide Who Comes”.

In deciding which applicants with a legitimate fear of being persecuted in their homelands are most worthy of refugee status, Australia needs a more rigorous system of triaging applicants. It might seem harsh to some, given the abundance of trauma and suffering experienced by many seeking shelter on our shores. But in truth, the humane response is to do everything possible to ensure that the most desperate of the desperate are given priority.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/how-to-decide-who-comes/story-e6frg71x-1225854731648

What should our attitude be towards refugees who cannot pay large sums of money to people smugglers to automatically claim a place in Australia’s humanitarian refugee resettlement program. Should Australia’s refugee resettlement program should be aimed towards those most in need or is it perfectly acceptable that those with access to substantial financial resources be granted resettlement in Australia ahead of others in more dire need who do not have the financial resources to pay people smugglers.

Franklin, congratulation,you said it all. All other posts have been circumlocutionary...whistling in the wind. Let everyone read that post again and seriously beging reflecting on what it fully entails.
An honest answer accompanied with a rush of suddenly found courage would help the prevaricating Rudd do the right thing...along the very lines you inferred,Franklin.
Again, congratulations. You said it all.

socratease

a lot of cowardly, deceitful, distorted, religiously prejudiced postings on here. I agree with others, why live to hate people who have no hope in their lives. Counselling is surely available. The posting by the Franklin person gives us the quote from Alex -

Me and my people are not saying that we should be at the head of the queue. All that we're trying to say is that our case is serious... we are just people getting out of a dangerous situation in our country at the moment.

There it is for those who are willing to see the truth, the haters can only fuel their blinding hatred and discussion is pointless. Don't bother arguing with them, it makes them think their hatred is meaningful

echidna
those who you would call "haters" in these on-going debates are those who love Australia and who resent and oppose those who are forcing themselves on us all. We didnt ask you lot to run here. Dont talk to me about people who will run anywhere with their families to flee imprisonment torture or even daeth. There are camps in Africa where there are many more than you lot who have the $15, 000 to cough up to the people smuggling industry. These Africans are much, MUCH worse off that you lot and have been through wqorse than you will ever.They are waiting patiently to be invited to Australia. There is a waiting list. We take only a limited amoumt which is reduced when we have to take you illegals into the country because you have forced yourselves onto us. The difference is that we willingly and lovingly want the Africans who are going through the legal processes and not jumping the queue. We would much rather have them than put up with you lot.Dont talk rubbish and say there is no queue in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Smart-assing wont got you a hell of a lot,pal.

We just want the real,genuine and thoroughly legal victims. We cant help stop wondering why you lot dont go to the many affluent Islamic countries closer to the scene of your tragedy. Why come all this way to Australia? You arent welcome here.

socratease

The question was:
"If asylum seekers are fleeing based on fear of persecution, do we have an obligation to offer them refuge as the first country they get to?"
Ours is not the first country they get to.
Hence, they're economy shoppers, not asylum seekers.
The message has got out that our welfare system will support them and their multiple wives and children for the rest of their lives.
Registered bleeding hearts should pay a special tax to make them feel warm and fuzzy about supporting "asylum seekers".
Haters and racists should be exempt from these taxes.
I wonder how long they would feel warm and fuzzy if they thought it was personally costing them money?

Last week it was either in USA or the UK that authorities discovered that a Muslim woman was found to be claiming a single parent's social benefits and child allowances for her 4 children. What was so wrong about that. She deserves compassion and is entitled to help,you say. But that wasnt the entire story. It was subsequently discovered that there were three other women each with four children and each was claiming single parent soicial benefits and child allowances. So what, they say.
All thre were found to be wives of the same husband who was on social benefits also and collecting from each wife/mother like a parasite.
Is this simply a mistake or a criminal case of fraud in a shameless parasitic existence that is endemic in ghettoes around the country?
No wonder they're breaking their necks to get to Australia!

socratease