Dr Eva Sallis points out:

"People arrive by boat not because what
we offer is attractive, but because what
pushes them to flee is unyielding.
The term "illegal immigrant" is a cruel
and dishonest manipulation of terms. No
one can be labelled "Illegal" without their
case being heard in a court, and no asylum
seeker in Australia and in the Pacific has
access to the courts to plead their case.

It is accepted under our migration laws that
an unauthorised arrival who then claims asylum
has a right to do so and to have his or her
claims heard and if found to be a refugee, to
find safe haven here..."

Dr Sallis claims that the current policy is a
return to the "White Australia" policy of the
past. That the purpose is to keep out refugees
from Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Afghanistan,
in other words Muslims and MIddle Eastern people.
Calling these people "Illegal immigrants," is
a joke. They are not immigrants, nor illegal.
They are also not "queue jumpers," as there is
no queue. She suggests that we substitute the
words "Jew" or "Black," for "queue jumpers,"
and actually take a look at what is really being
said.

Anyway, I highly recommend you read the entire
article:

http://www.australiansagainstracism.org/code/resources06.html

It may give you a different perspective from the media
spin.

Foxy - laws change in reaction to social and current sentiment, clearly there are a lot of Australians who disagree with our laws and want them changed. Waving a law from a different item in our faces or a UN resolution (unbinding) eventually pisses people off and they stop being polite because the finger waggers ceased to be polite years ago.

The fact that politicians react to the masses, the majority of sentiment must tell you that the finger waggers and bleeding hearts are a minority, loud I grant you, but not mainstream.

nairbe, maybe you're the one out of step here. I'm from a family of recent immigrants and do not subscribe to your widely cast guilt - it's your problem, not mine or the other recent arrivals.

Why do you think we have to carry your load like this? When my family came here, there was no indication that they would be handed this hairshirt to wear.

The people you talk about, do not help themselves, so fine, prop them up with the usual welfare and services and let them be - they don't want anything more from life than handouts - in a free society that's fine. But don't ask us, people who came here from very tough backgrounds to accept their laziness or lack of work ethic as our problem - it is not, it is their problem. If you want it to be yours, good for you.

It's not racist, I don't care what group behaves like that, my response is the same .. get off your pud, get over the wrongs of 200 years ago and move on.

We did not bring the wrongs of our country here, our hatred of whoever did it, of whomever took my family's lands.

Harden up people .. if we keep pouring services to people who have learned to expect it, we are rewarding them for expecting more.

Like a lot of new settlers, Amicus chooses to remain ignorant of the history of this country. Folk like Amicus come here and refuse to see how they personally benifit from the disposession and marginalisation of Australia's original people.

This ignorance give rise to the failure to understand the ongoing effects of the stuctural racism that continues to impact on Indigenous Australian lives. Check out the Medical journal of Australia, they acknowledge the disparity of basic cardiac health care between what Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians recieve, based, it appears on racial lines.

If you don't like the history and repercussions of Australia's colonialist past, and the hairshirt that accompanies it, I am sure you can find a country more suitable to your tastes.

Australia alway was, always will be, Aboriginal land.

I'm beginning to wonder if I read the same article as everyone else. My understanding of the article is that it argues:

a) that there IS prejudice in Australia, but this is no different from any other society.

b) that a lot of what we attribute to 'prejudice' or 'racism' is not, in fact, triggered by either.

c) that much of the inequity in our society - for example with indigenous communities - stems not from racial prejudice, but from grand designs that just don't work.

With this in mind, I agreed with much of what I read in the article. I think we would be fools to deny that there is prejudice in our society, but we would also be fools to beat ourselves up over it. Prejudice is everywhere, in every society I have ever lived in or visited. It is no worse in Australia. We just like to talk about it and feel bad about ourselves.

As for the illegality of asylum seekers - there is a difference between 'illegal' and 'criminal' activity. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit, but that is not a crime. That asylum seekers are 'unlawful non-citizens' indicates that their activity is outside the law (illegal) regardless of whether or not it is a crime. Whether or not they deserve to be here, or whether or not this law is just and fair is another debate - one I will try very hard not to join.

Foxy says Dr Eva Sallis’s article: “May give you a different perspective from the media spin”

A different perspective!

-- "People arrive by boat not because what we offer is attractive, but because what pushes them to flee is unyielding”
--“The term 'illegal immigrant' is a cruel and dishonest manipulation of terms”.
-- “The current policy is a return to the ‘White Australia’”

With all due respect, Foxy – none of it is different.
This is the same old spin we have been getting from "advocates" –both in and out of the media, for decades.

And the subtext to Dr Eva Sallis’s article is also, NOT NEW : “There are some issues which are beyond the ken of the plebes... let them eat cake,instead ”

Formerslag: are you on day release?