you are just bored and lonely Shadow Minister and your excitement seems to come from word games. How is it that the announcement of an end to the Pacific Solution when rudd was elected in 2007 caused the boats to increase now. Oh I get it now! Rudd's election was so powerful that it caused the global financial crisis and the twister in Lennox Head and let's not forget the volcano spewing lava in Iceland. My god I've just worked out that the stimulus package must have caused the earthquake in Haiti and the apology to Indigenous people has caused more bombs to go off in iraq. Thanks for clearing that up. Rudd is a powerful man and he should realise the reach he has before its too late for all of us. Oh and Afghan applications around the world have increased by 45% in 2009 but australia's increase in applications is only 29% even though most arrivals are from Afghanistan where the Taliban has risen again, you might want to read some reports or try the news about OTHER countries... duh. You don't seem to know much about people movements, try another subject.

Amicus and others:

If being a signatory of UN treaties is such a terrible thing for Australia, and so desperately unpopular with the electorate, why didn't John Howard withdraw Australia from all of them - particularly the Refugee Convention which was probably the most troublesome of all to him?

And if a moratorium on immigration is such a good thing for Australia, and popular with the electorate, why did Howard do exactly the opposite, boosting net immigration to more than 200,000 per year?

And if accepting refugees at all is such a bad thing for all of us, and the electorate hate them, why did John Howard maintain our intake at 13,000 plus per year, right up to 2007? Why didn't he just cut them out altogether?

Howard wasn't exactly the kind of guy to shy away from radical change, especially if he thought it was popular in the suburbs and could generate a vote or three. And he had plenty of time - 4 terms in government, 12 years in all, and a Senate majority for the last 3 years so he could have rammed through anything he wanted.

If he wasn't afraid of introducing extreme stuff like WorstChoices, the never-ever GST, Pacific Solution, excision of islands, balaclavas and rottweilers on the wharves, special anti-terrorist legislation featuring suspension of habeas corpus, and the almost total shutdown of Sydney for APEC 2007, why did he wimp out of a few relatively mild measures like shredding the UN treaties, scrapping immigration and ruling out any further refugee acceptance?

According to you, the punters would've loved him for it, so given his track record with populism, he shouldn't have been able to resist it.

Kumbalia,
Your religion is clearly as an advocate for 'illegals' as distinct from genuine refugees. So no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. You are the one lieing on this thread. Even when SM has placed the facts and figures before you, all you can say is duh, duh, and then try and laugh it away by being completely silly.

You are a pathetic little thing.

The only reason I would post something contrary to you is simply because someone with more sense may read it.

Slobodon,
Not just the previous government, but the present government are also advocates of high immigration. The reason for this is that both major parties are in the pockets of developers and big business who want high immigration, so the electorate is ignored.

I know of no one who is opposed to us accepting genuine refugees. What most are opposed to are the illegal entrants who gate crash and force themselves upon us. These are con merchants who take advantage of our easy going nature. The fact that they destroy their papers and lie to our officials is evidence of their sculldugery.

It is well known that they could fly here far cheaper than what they pay smugglers and, being a legal entrant, if genuine, could apply for asylum on arrival. It is obvious why they choose the illegal means of entry.

banjo
Kumbalia may be saying duh because people just keep repeating the same lines without any evidence of what it means. ie the boat arrivals have increased. It's not a revelation and it's not furthering intelligent debate. The comments on here dumb down the debate until someone can't help but register the lowly pathetic level of political lines being run.
If you say you have no problem with genuine refugees you will have no problem with most people on boats - more than 90% are found to have genuine claims for refugee status - and you will have no issue with people's claims being tested fairly.
The problem with the people with antagonism to people from other countries coming here who post on these forums is that they don't know the stories or the humans they are talking about. When was the last time any of you met a refugee who came by boat or plane? Have you ever. You can talk on all you like in abstraction but you have no experience of what you are talking about. It should be mandatory for people to spend time with refuees to gain some genuine understanding. I can undersand why Kumbala is reduced to duh. If I read any more of these comments from the stop the boats brigade I won't have a brain left

Just keep reading Mellom, I don't think anyone could harm your brain.

I am sick of people deciding they are going to gate crash my country.

I don't give a damn what their story is.

If they don't have papers, or are unable to prove who they are in some other way, I want them out of here, permanently.

I'm sick of seeing genuine Ozies getting stuff all from our taxes, then seeing these gate crashers living in $500,000 public housing, just because they can not be proven not to be refugees.

When we can finally house all of our own, it may be time to start wasting money on genuine refugees, chosen by us, not because they want to live on our welfare, but because they will fit in to our way of life.

Asian, subcontinent, middle eastern & African values are very different to ours, & we can no longer afford to keep diluting our culture with so many of the undesirables we have been bringing in in the name of charity.

Just how many have to be bashed by street gangs, of these people, before some of you twits wake up.

MELLOM

you seem to have a problem with vision. You seem to only see the very narrow focus of:

//The problem with the people with antagonism to people from other countries coming here who post on these forums is that they don't know the stories or the humans they are talking about.//

When the bigger picture is clearly "If we accepted everyone on the basis of their sad story.... we would have to accept half the world"

You do see that don't you ?

Would you limit 'sad story' people to only those who come here by boats?

It's never about 'stories'...it's about the things which the UN convention also considers.

A State is not obliged to assist any person who:

* has committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity;
* has committed a serious non-political crime, outside their country of refuge prior to his/her admission as a refugee;
* has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

EXAMPLE. A tamil man comes here by boat.. he tells a horrific story "Oh..those government troops destroyed my home.. my family had to flee to the jungle just to survive.. I have a well founded fear of persecution for my political beliefs"

BUT..he turns out to be a Tamil Tiger or sympathizer or supporter.

You still accept his 'sad story' ?

What about....

* has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. ?