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