The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Refugees seeking asylum > Comments

Refugees seeking asylum : Comments

By Stephen Austin, published 5/7/2010

The issue of asylum seekers has weighed on the conscience of Australians for a long time now.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
Good article Stephen. Welcome to OLO.

<<Again I ask you, at what point does the contribution of boat people become an issue? Whether we agree on 4,000 or 10,000, be it within years or decades, it is simply a matter of time before our threshold will be breached.>>

The ‘threshold’ has got very little to do with actual numbers as a proportion of our total refugee or immigration intake and everything to do with the effects that asylum-seeking / people-smuggling is having on people who embark on the journey, on Australian citizens and on the conflict it is causing within our political and social fabric.

The threshold has well and truly been reached.

<<The notion of seeking asylum in Australia by boat must be rendered an impossible one.>>

Yes. Absolutely!

But your assertion seems to be at odds with your notion that we have not yet reached a threshold.

Your argument for turning the boats around is strong. But I’m reluctant to go quite that far, at least not just suddenly without warning.

continued
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 5 July 2010 10:36:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that any boats currently on the way need to be accommodated.

The people on them, and indeed those currently in detention centres needs to be subjected to a considerably more rigorous interpretation of refugee determination, that is at least some distance closer to how we judge refugees to be brought to this country via our formal offshore program.

The message needs to be sent unequivocally around the world that Rudd’s window of opportunity for onshore asylum-seeking in Australia is closing forthwith, and that anyone embarking from this point on will not be accommodated and will be returned quickly, unless there is a real likelihood of them facing tragedy if that happens.

Border-protection policy has certainly got to be tightened right up. Inevitably, some people are going to get caught in the middle. We need to be very careful about striking the horribly difficult balance between asserting a very strong deterrence factor while upholding our humanity to desperate people, as best we can. This means that we should certainly not just turn all boats back from this point on.

And then we should double our refugee intake via our onshore program.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 5 July 2010 10:39:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dammit. Stuffed it up in the last sentence.

It should read:

And then we should double our refugee intake via our OFFSHORE program.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 5 July 2010 10:45:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The opposition Immigration spokesman, Scott Morrison, was on Radio National this morning, spruiking the opposition's policy of turning boats around "where the circumstances allow".

Challenged to state what those circumstances might be, he listed three prerequisites:

1) the boat must be seaworthy;

2) you must have the support of the country from which they have come (not their home country but the country where boat sailed from);

3) you must have a guarantee that that country will not send them back to the country they claim to be fleeing from.

It seems to me that these prerequisites would hardly ever be fulfilled, given that:

(a) assessing seaworthiness is fraught with practical difficulties in the middle of the ocean, and fraught with humanitarian implications - if they get it wrong, people may die. It's a responsibility RAN sailors should not be asked to shoulder;

(b) Most boats sail from Indonesia, and we can judge the level of their "support" for returning boats from the disastrous results of the Oceanic Viking episode;

(c) Morrison says the Liberals are "committed" to "international and regional cooperation", but really, Indonesia agreeing to Australian conditions about precisely what they will and won't do with asylum seekers on their territory is about as likely as Australia allowing Indonesia to dictate to us.

So effectively, the circumstances Morrison spruiked would hardly ever, and possibly never, apply.

Unfortunately the interviewer Alison Carabine didn't pick him up on this, and he got away with what seems like a deliberate electorally-targeted slice of disingenuousness.

How does Stephen Austin propose to "humane(ly) turn 2000 boat people back now"? What circumstances does HE think would allow boats to be turned back humanely?
Posted by Slobodon Meshirtfront, Monday, 5 July 2010 11:20:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well it seems that Ms Hanson/Gillard now shows her complete hypocrisy by agreeing with Mr Abbot that we should decide who comes here. Next she will be giving a licence for gw sceptics to be allowed express an opinion on the great hoax. Only the 'true believers would not be embarassed by Labours complete hypocrisy.
Posted by runner, Monday, 5 July 2010 12:14:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that this article is a disingenuous bleat, but it'll undoubtedly prove to be quite mild when compared with what we're likely to hear shortly in response to PM Gillard's overture to the closet Hansonites.

I'm always bemused by claims that asylum seekers who arrive by boat are unfairly taking the places of others in offshore refugees camps, due to the cap/quota of 13,750. There is absolutely nothing preventing the Australian government increasing its quota by the number of boat arrivals. Hell, we could easily quadruple our refugee intake while reducing net immigration simply by axing the bogus 'skilled' migration program.

But Dr Austin isn't arguing for any increase at all in refugee intake, which leads me to think his concern for the welfare of refugees is about as sincere as those other disingenuous types who deploy the bogus 'queue-jumoer' argument.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Monday, 5 July 2010 2:09:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
People arriving illegally by smugglers’ boats should not be part of any refugee intake. We have an orderly refugee intake, and only those who have been processed offshore should be taken in. Illegals are cheats and queue-jumpers, more likely to be non-genuine because they have passed through countries where they could have applied to UN officials for asylum en route just as the ones waiting overseas have done. They know that, if they can reach Australia, they are 99.9% sure to be allowed to stay, no matter what fantasy stories they tell.

Italy received 36,000 illegals in 2008 because they don’t have an offshore intake as does Australia; asylum seekers have to actually reach the country before they are even considered, in most countries.

Just because “Our population worldwide continues to spiral”, doesn’t mean that we should be taking in so-called refugees. Personal danger is the criteria.

And yes, as the author says, for every illegal ‘boat person’ allowed to stay in Australia, there is one processed and law-abiding refugee who misses out. The open-border maniacs don’t see the unfairness of this.

The author refers to “an audience member” attending that totally unbalanced ABC programme ‘Q & A’ claiming that “more than 90 per cent of boat people are found to be genuine refugees.”

Oh yes? How does this unnamed individual know this when the whole business is kept secret, and our immigration officials are proven incompetents who fall for any story they hear from undocumented illegals? And, let’s not forget the Labor Government has told members of a government-appointed review panel that they will not keep their jobs if they knock too many back. Illegals do not have access to the court system now. When they did, judges were told the three same, rehearsed stories, and they could knock back the shonks because all they had to do was make a finding on the legal aspects of the reason for denying people visas. Now, just about everyone one is allowed to stay, thanks to Labor.

.......
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 5 July 2010 2:55:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
......

As far as the general public knows, there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the illegal boat arrivals are genuine refugees fleeing from personal danger.

This is a well-balanced article, loaded with common sense and enough ‘compassion’ to mollify the looniest Lefty. The statement that: “The notion of seeking asylum in Australia by boat must be rendered an impossible one” is undeniable.
Posted by Leigh, Monday, 5 July 2010 2:57:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So predictable... in spite of a well argued and deeply reasoned article any *hint* of Australia controlling it's own destiny is quickly assailed by the forces of darkness, trying to undermine any vestige of sovereignty and dismantle 'White Power Structures' as they see it, totally in harmony with the ideas underpinning their political viewpoint:

http://racetraitor.org/abolish.html "Abolish the white race" (as a social construct)

and their more recent comrades in Australia:

http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ "Critical Whiteness studies"

Denying opportunity to those who are in camps already for the sake of those who storm our sea ramparts, is tragic indeed.

SOLUTION.

a) Incarcerate All crew and captains for 10 yrs
b) Spread the message far and wide.. even taking out TV ads in Indonesia.

The captains and crews..ARE "People Smugglers" they just don't happen to be the kingpins.

But how effective will kingpins be in their business if they have no on to do their dirty work?
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Monday, 5 July 2010 4:58:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee I think I've heard these arguments before. I wonder if Dr Austin has been posting on the forums under pseudonym. Maybe with a very Australian sounding name? Its just that this is a surprisingly uncaring piece from a doctor. Just a thought.
Posted by David Jennings, Monday, 5 July 2010 5:45:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don't want gate crashers at my party, or in my country. Any one without a visa should be sent back to whever they claim to come from, instantly.

Any one who can't prove their identity, or country of origin should never be let in, under any circumstances.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 5 July 2010 5:55:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Except that its not "your" party sweetheart, its "our" party, and some of us who are the co-hosts at this little shindig are quite happy to let more people in regardless of whether they've come by boat.

But I'd be happy to kick Leigh and the good doctor out. We do have to maintain standards.
Posted by David Jennings, Monday, 5 July 2010 7:52:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leigh,

"As far as the general public knows, there is no evidence whatsoever that any of the illegal boat arrivals are genuine refugees fleeing from personal danger."

That's why their individual cases are heard and assessed. If they are false, they are sent back but if they are indeed found to be genuine - then what?

You are also quick to dismiss statements made by "an audience member" but have made a few totally unsupported statements of your own and seem more than willing to discredit others who are actually qualified to make such assessments, probably because you just don't like the results.
Posted by wobbles, Monday, 5 July 2010 8:00:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David, would you be in publicly funded employment, by any chance?

It is my experience that those who recive their income courtesy of the tax payer are the most likey to aprove of more tax payer funds being expended all over the place.

I guess it's the easy come easy go syndrome at play.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 5 July 2010 8:09:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whatever the outcome of this so-called debate, I hope the real truth about the LNP boat policy becomes known.

On ABC Radio some time ago, Alexander Downer admitted that they DID NOT STOP the boats from leaving. They just turned them around and towed them back into Indonesian waters. (Hence the subsequent problem with the Oceanic Viking.)

"The other thing we did, which we did more sotto voce was to tow the boats – I must say this is not something that has generated much publicity recently in Australia – we used to get the Navy not to guide the boats into the Australian shore line what we did was [laughs] we got the navy to tow the boats back to the Indonesian territorial waters, left the boats with enough fuel, food and so on to get to a port in Indonesia – guided them where to go – and them left them.

Obviously monitored them to make sure the boat was safe but disappeared over the horizon. And this worked very effectively, but we did this without any publicity, we didn’t run around boasting that we were doing this because we knew the Indonesian accepted these people back through gritted teeth. But what the present government has done is in a way is what we did over the Tampa make too much noise publicly, back the Indonesians into a corner and so then the Indonesians said they wouldn’t take the people, just as they wouldn’t take the people from the Tampa."

Therefore, the alleged public tough stance and the TPV fiasco had no effect on the pull factors. It was just window dressing for electoral consumption.

It will be interesting to see which way it goes now but I suspect it will be a race to see who is more brutal and dishonest.
Posted by rache, Monday, 5 July 2010 8:14:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee Hasbeen, would you be a an old white male of a working class or low middle class persuasion living off a moderate income in Queensland? Because its been my experience .....

I'm a university academic mate. Whether thats publicly funded anymore is very debatable. I'm also a lawyer with a firm. Thats private income. I work hard for my money and if I wasn't doing this I'd be doing something else. So my opinion is just as valid as yours. I'm just not as insecure.
Posted by David Jennings, Monday, 5 July 2010 8:45:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to the news Gillard intends to ship those who have been refused asylum back.

Considering that 60% of afghans have refused asylum, and there is a deal with Sri Lanka to guarantee the safety of returned refugees, that should mean that under Gillard, nearly all of those in detention will be deported.

Gillard is Howard lite.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 5 July 2010 9:06:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister,
Re : “Considering that 60% of afghans have refused asylum…nearly all of those in detention will be deported.”

You missed the important second part, Shadow :

“But despite refusal rates for Afghans climbing to around 60 per cent, only two have been returned. In both cases, the returns were voluntary, with the other deportations held up in appeals.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/julia-gillard-to-send-back-boatpeople/story-e6frg6n6-1225887782751

There will be appeals from here till well after the next two elections –all at tax payers expense, of course.

I like some others I think this new policy has more to do with defusing it as an election issue than anything else.

PS: I see old CJ “IT’’LL BE MESSY BUT IT’S INEVITABLE” Morgan is bleating about the welfare of refugees, again –how ironic !
Posted by Horus, Monday, 5 July 2010 10:31:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Egon Kisch was a Jewish communist and anti-war activist he was a vocal critic of Adolf Hitler’s regime.
When Kisch wanted to come to visit Australia in 1934, Menzies pointed out that “every civilized country had the right to determine who should or should not be allowed in”, and that “since Kisch was a revolutionary and that revolution involved violence, he was not to be permitted entry”.

Did you notice that nothing has changed?
Posted by lorry, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 1:20:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The widening gap between global resettlement needs and the quotas offered by states will be at the core of annual tripartite consultations between governments, the non-governmental sector, and UNHCR. This year's consultations, which are taking place in Geneva from July 6th to 8th, are co-chaired by Sweden and UNHCR. Dan Eliasson, Director-General of the Swedish Migration Board, and High Commissioner Guterres will open the meeting.

"I am truly disappointed with the states in Europe not taking a higher humanitarian responsibility for resettlement, and I am seriously concerned considering the situation for refugees suffering in camps and cities all over the world," said Eliasson.

With an annual resettlement quota of 1,900 places, Sweden tops the list of 13 European countries (Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the UK). Last year Belgium, Germany, Italy and Luxembourg also implemented ad hoc resettlement programmes.

In September 2009, UNHCR welcomed the European Commission's proposal for the establishment of a Joint EU Resettlement Programme. UNHCR encourages greater European engagement in refugee resettlement. At present, around 90% of the refugees resettled every year are accepted by the United States, Canada and Australia.
Posted by lorry, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 1:46:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One Hanson supports Gillard while another Hanson condemns her!

PM Gillard yesterday said:

"I'd like to sweep away any sense that people should close down any debate, including this debate, through a sense of self-censorship or political correctness.

People should feel free to say what they feel. For people to say they're anxious about border security doesn't make them intolerant. It certainly doesn't make them a racist - it means they're expressing a genuine view."

Pauline Hanson has come out in support: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/hanson-praises-gillard-on-boatpeople-policy/story-e6frg6nf-1225888260099

She said; “That's what I said in the parliament in 1996 and it's what I'm saying now. It's only when you have a true debate and let the people of Australia have a say that we can start to make the right decisions.”

Meanwhile, Greens Senator Sarah Hanson-Young has condemned Gillard for her comments and for any hardening of policy on asylum seekers.

Greens leader Bob Brown was appalling in his support for Hanson-Young on Lateline last night.

Of COURSE asylum seeker / border protection policy needs to be tightened up.

Of COURSE we need to be able to have an open debate about it.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 7:31:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sarah Hanson-Young is "OF COURSE" correct - Gillard's weasel words are clearly a dog-whistle aimed at attracting the xenophobic vote, as we see this morning both the ALP and the Opposition scrabbling to appear "tougher" on boat people.

I think that this tawdry strategy is likely to backfire on Gillard - many of the voters who had deserted the ALP under Rudd for the Greens and subsequently (according to the all-important polls) drifted back on Gillard's coup, will now return to the Greens, since they are the only party displaying decency and humanity with respect to asylum seekers.

Sure there should be a debate in which issues surrounding asylum seekers, refugees, visa overstayers and 'skilled' immigration are discussed honestly for a change. However, it seems to me that thus far all the exaggerations, distortion of facts and outright vilification have been coming from the xenophobic contingent. Somehow, I doubt that the way the "debate" is being framed is going to result in a dispassionate and factual discussion.

I suspect the dog-whistle will work for Gillard as it did for Howard, but I rather hope the ALP lose the forthcoming election on the basis of this cynical and inhumane strategy. The ALP and the Coalition are just as bad as each other.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 8:00:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh my..... talk about weasel words....

"this cynical and inhumane strategy."

Let's decode this:

1/ Greens need balance of power to have any voice.

2/ They can achieve this through 'marginal' seats.

3/ The don't need THAT many votes to gain possibly a win of a seat OR.. almost as important..the "preference deal" to die for.

4/ Thus.. posturing themselves as 'saviours' of the poor 'refugee' will assure them (in time) of a stronger voter base when those fully resettled "refugees" start using our laws to bring out extended family, who will also identity with the clan 'political heroes'

*quickly ducks* so CJ cannot hang a huge king hit on me....(from behind of course)

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10631&page=0#175749

*Don't presume to do it again. If you did so to my face I'd probably drop you.*

Hey wait..
CJ.. I thought Greens believed in the peaceful resolution of conflict?

I prefer to just dialogue with people who are supposedly capable of it CJ
*friendly smile* :)
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 8:50:18 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find it quite amusing that boast people refugee advocates squawk so loud. Most of you couldn’t even afford to be refugees.

Where would YOU find $15k per person in “ready cash” to pay a people smuggler?

The hypocrisy of such social compassion is staggering. When are you sick puppies going to stick up for the poor sods that don’t have the money?
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 8:52:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah well, some people don't need to be dog-whistled - besides which, they'd never vote for Labor anyway. I really hope this cynical strategy backfires on Gillard.

spindoc, as I've said, there's absolutely nothing to stop the Australian government increasing its self-imposed quota and admitting many more refugees.

Oh, of course there's the xenophobic "sick puppies" like you who are still too unfortunately numerous in the electorate and would punish them for it. Please don't try and pretend that you're motivated by the interests of offshore refugees.

Boaz - yes, Greens policy is to promote peace and non-violence. On reflection, I would more likely just walk away, as one does when one encounters a raving lunatic on the street. My apologies if I frightened you :)
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 9:16:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now, now CJ.

The ALP says no more PC, no more calling people xenophobic or racists because they don’t agree with you. No more insisting that others share your advocacy; the ALP insists we now have a right to our views and concerns. The ALP also says that John Howard was not a racist for Liberal Party policy on refugees.

You really do need to keep up to date on these issues. I know, I know, ideology is such a bitch to move forward.

You still didn’t tell us if you can afford to be one of these boatpeople, you didn’t explain the contradiction between encouraging wealthy boatpeople and leaving the poor ones in camps?

Or is you answer to have more poor ones approved as compensation for advocate hypocrisy?
Posted by spindoc, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 9:59:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It does not really matter what anyone on here or in parliament or in
government says the whole situation will change in a very few years.
There will be significant changes in food supply around the world and
this alone will cause, initially at least, an upsurge in migration.

What we must decide now is what we will do when the numbers escalate
into the tens or hundreds of thousands.
We are importing significant amounts of food now !
What will happen when that imported food is not available ?
Increasing costs of food, due largely to increasing fuel costs, will
make this country very difficult for many of us that are here now.
How would many hundreds of thousands extra cope especially when most
would be almost penniless.

Then on top of all that there is the problem of water.
Sure there has been some breaking of the drought in places but what
about the next drought or the one after that.

There is only one solution, as brutal as it is, but the people should
stay where they are and adjust their population to suit the carrying
capacity of their own countries.
Ultimately it is the only real solution.

As the food shortage bights into the populations of all countries
immigration will fall to very low numbers. Migration that remains
will be restricted to walking.

Surely what is needed right now is a decision on what our carrying
capacity is and a resolution to enforce it.
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 11:21:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
11.15 am Central Standard Time, and Gillard is just talking about her new illegal boat policy.

On the other hand, Abbott had his policy out bright and early with the roosters. It contains an automatic rebuff to illegals arriving without documents, and an increase of 10% in legitimate refugees from offshore locations – where people have been waiting patiently rather than jumping the queue.

Gillard might be leader of the government, but Abbott is the leader in policy and rapid response to electorate demand.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 11:55:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< Sure there should be a debate in which issues surrounding asylum seekers, refugees, visa overstayers and 'skilled' immigration are discussed honestly for a change. >>

Yes CJ, which is exactly what Gillard is calling for. So why on earth are you criticising her and branding her a dog-whistler??

This ridiculous dog-whistle slur is fully as bad as any racial slur. It is just ENTIRELY inappropriate. The debate needs to be free of ALL this sort of thing.

I think that Hanson-Young's dog-whistle reference is not going to do her nor the Greens any good at all. I see here immediately as being strongly unbalanced and not open to reasonable debate. You are giving me the same impression Ceej.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 12:38:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bugger!

That should have read:

I see HER immediately as being strongly unbalanced and not open to reasonable debate.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 12:41:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Could David Jennings please explain why in this thread he stated

"I'm a university academic mate. Whether thats publicly funded anymore is very debatable. I'm also a lawyer with a firm."

Yet a google search shows that on the 22 Jan this year in onlineopinion he stated..

"In another life I would have been a lawyer. But in this life I'm just a very frustrated person as a result of the most glaring examples of regulators playing up!"
Posted by ozzie, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 12:52:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To quote spindoc from another thread:

<< The ALP said they would close the “White Elephant” at Christmas Island. Instead they packed it to the rafters and then reopened some more. We already have Military and Customs fully engaged, 18 patrol boats and numerous aircraft, now we are to build another 8 patrol boats at tax payers expense. Don’t tell me that only 3% of immigration is boatpeople; tell me about the proportional costs. >>

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3773#92154

If only Rudd had put that sort of money into improving our offshore input into refugee issues, including bringing a whole lot more to this country, maybe considerably more than have arrived by boat since he stuffed up our national border protection policy, I reckon he'd still be PM.

Now, if Gillard can just tighten border protection right up again and then progressively divert the enormous cost of dealing with onshore asylum seekers into helping refugees via our formal programs, then surely refugee advocates and those who want to see the boats stopped, would all be happy, yes?
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 1:02:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I apologise to David, and retract my previous post. On doing another search it appears the above comment was made by another person, not David.
Posted by ozzie, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 1:07:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Apology accepted.
Posted by David Jennings, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 2:19:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ, why is it "bogus" to state, quite plainly, that those who show up illegally unfairly relegate those who follow the procedure to wait eternally? There is a quota, whatever the quota is set at, these people are seeking to place themselves at the head of the queue, in most cases unfairly (with very dubious claims indeed).

Quite frankly I am happy that the Federal Government has FINALLY taken notice of the fact that the MAJORITY of Australian's have little to no time for queue-jumping, illegal immigrants posing as asylum seekers. It has been no secret, Pauline made it VERY CLEAR, yet it has been ignored until now? How is it so?

The fact that the MAJORITY of Australian's agree on something doesn't make it the exclusive preserve of either the "LEFT" or "RIGHT", it makes it common ground.

CJ (also runner and the more emotive respondents), have a look around, actually ask around - go ask at a rodeo, a boxing match, a nightclub, a footie club BBQ, whatever... Let's see how many people really support your position, shall we?

I'd be awfully suprised if most people gave two hoots about our agreements with the UN or about refugees in general. Finally the politicians have looked past the 'interest groups' to see what "REAL AUSTRALIAN'S" do and don't want. As REAL AUSSIES are the ones who vote, it is about time.

I'm interested to note that it took a Female, Agnostic PM, who is in a de facto relationship, to state publicly that being non-PC is not "un-Australian", FINALLY (Yes CJ, go on... count the negatives:P)
Posted by Custard, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 7:17:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because there is no orderly migration queue. People can wait 10-15 years in a refugee camp, and be at the mercy of all sorts of things, with little chance of being accepted anywhere, despite being refugees.

If we can't call the racists "racists" can we now just call them "degenerate parasite trash"... is that non-PC enough? Help me out here, I'm new to gutter abuse.

Gillard will say anything, do anything, to get ahead... just ask Kevin.
Posted by David Jennings, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 8:55:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I listened to an Iraqi man on talk back radio tonight. He stated that he had to leave Iraq because of the war. His father paid $20,000 to send him to Australia and paid an undisclosed sum to send his brother to America. He stated that his father wanted to get them out because America was bombing their country. At no time did he state that foreign forces were contributing to bringing peace to his homeland. Last night I watched a documentary on TV that showed Australian soldiers in Afghanistan. They were working to train Afghani soldiers to fight the Taliban and improve the living conditions within that country. The comment was made by one of the Australian military personnel that the majority of the Afghanis they were training were illiterate but they were willing to fight to change the conditions in their country and at the same time learn new skills. It would seem to me that those with money couldn't care less about their country, and would rather pay out huge sums to get out rather than take up arms, whilst the poor are either left with no option or are making the most of the opportunity to better themselves and conditions. Surely one has got to ask, if these so called "refugees" don't like the conditions within their country why are they not joining the forces to change the conditions? Why are they being allowed to come here to sit back on the dole. I believe the answer to Australia's asylum seeker problem is to send all eligible men back to their homeland to train with the Australian soldiers. There should be no option. Families should be allowed to stay here on temporary visas until conditions change within their homeland and then they should go back. Just imagine the advantage to the coalition forces to be boosted in their numbers by native speaking individuals, fully aclimatised, with first hand knowledge of regions, customs, traditions and politics with a passion to change the conditions within their own country. This has got to be acted on immediately.
Posted by bigred, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 9:54:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, well, well .... It seems that BOTH major political parties have finally woken up to the FACT that MOST Australians are not at all happy about people entering this country illegally. It took the incumbent Labor people a while to twig that their new humane policies were a complete DUD and if they didn't want to go down the tube they'd better start taking notice of their support base.

Anyway that's democracy - not always concerned whether right or wrong, rather what the majority wants. This time I believe the majority clearly understands that illegal entry is wrong and needs to be stopped.

So how long before the Greens come to the same conclusion? Beats me why they haven't already given their agenda regarding population control and limits. Surely risk of quarantine breaches introducing disease and pestilence to native fauna and flora would also cause a flutter in the ranks? (I'd add risk to people and agriculture but those aren't big Greens concerns) They'll come to their senses soon though I'll wager.

Julia - thank-you for introducing a modicum of common sense and opening some REAL debate minus the PC crap most Aussies have come to resent ferociously. Good Lord - come up with a solution that works and I might even have to vote for you ....
Posted by divine_msn, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 11:03:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen asked David Jennings:
“David, would you be in publicly funded employment, by any chance?
…I guess it's the easy come easy go syndrome at play.”
David Jennings replied that he was an academic and it was debatable if that was government funded.
You said on 9 June 2010: “Govt kicks in only 25-40% of a universities revenue. The other 60% has to come from somewhere and foreign students are a useful component of that revenue.”
So not only are you reliant on government spending to keep your job…but on immigrants and plenty of them. They who pay the fiddler call the tune – YOUR tune - the hard reality of immigration factories. Just a thought Sweetie Pie.
Posted by Jack M, Tuesday, 6 July 2010 11:47:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
He probably makes more money than you Jack? But why the obsession with where people get there money from?
Posted by jjplug, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 12:42:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Politics.

First you create the notion that everybody is under imminent threat by some kind of menace.

It could be refugees in boats, a budget deficit or rising interest rates.

Then you portray yourself as the only person who can save everybody.

It's been happening since ancient times when Crassus pretended to save Rome from Spartacus and his marauding hoards - and will keep on happening.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 2:03:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let’s now really put the cat amongst the pigeons and settle this “no-win” issue once and for all.

We’ll alter this Kobayashi Maru simulation slightly so that the so called illegal boat people that are trickling in are actually of Germanic origin, say Norwegian, Swedish, Dane or of the British Isles say Welsh, English, Scottish or perhaps Dutch, German or Belgium.

Whatcha mean “that’s not fair, it’s cheating”?
Ahh...but as Kirk says “I don’t believe in the no-win situation”.

Touché
Posted by Westralis, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 2:48:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, the most interesting thing about this 'debate' is that such a relatively trivial issue is apparently Australia's most pressing political concern, ranking above health, education, the environment and even the bloody mining tax. Well before Rudd's demise I predicted that the major parties would be racing each other to the bottom on asylum seekers in the forthcoming election. Sadly, I underestimated the willingness of the ALP to shift to the far right on refugees.

I was pleasantly surprised to see this article on the Courier Mail website this morning - though I notice that it has rapidly been shifted from the front page into obscurity:

<< Majority of asylum seekers come by air

ILLEGAL boat arrivals are a mere trickle compared to the thousands of people swarming through Australian airports to claim political asylum.

The boat arrivals are more likely to be genuine refugees, they don't receive special benefits nor "carry disease," and the idea they are queue jumpers is open to interpretation.

The information is contained in a Federal Parliament background note which explodes myths about boat arrivals. >>

Full story at http://tiny.cc/w45b6
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 9:47:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< …the most interesting thing about this 'debate' is that such a relatively trivial issue is apparently Australia's most pressing political concern… >>

CJ, it wouldn’t be a major issue if refugee advocates / open border proponents weren’t so vehement in their positions. One has got to ask, given that the number of onshore asylum seekers is small all-told, why is it of such importance to them that our borders remain porous and the boats be allowed to continue arriving?

Why on earth can’t they see that we’d be much better off with a tight border-protection policy, no boat arrivals and a much-boosted input into our offshore refugee aid programs and a larger formal refugee intake?

Why don’t they put their efforts into lobbying for a doubling of our formal refugee intake, an increase in our international aid to the UN recommended 0.7% of GDP and related matters?

It seems to me that their energies are just terribly misdirected.

The notion that the ALP has shifted to the far right with its new border-protection policy is fundamentally flawed. How stupid would they have been to just let the current situation continue, with quite frequent and ongoing boat arrivals, with already overcrowded processing centres, and if there was to be any further weakening of the policy by placing lots of asylum seekers in the open community, the rate of arrivals would just continue to increase.

Gillard has done what she HAD to do. There’s nothing far right about it. There’s no ‘race to the bottom’ between the ALP and Liberals over this issue.

Such terminology is just totally misplaced.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 12:26:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Very nicely put Wobbles. And true.
_____________________________

We really rise to the occasion don't we? Such an obedient lot.

(Pick your PM)= 'Simon says':- "OK. gullible proletariat, start your protests:-

I'M not racist but../ YOU are PC/ WE are the silent majority/ THEY are illegals/ THEY are terrorists/ THEY are different/ THEY will control us/ THEY want us to embrace Islam/ THEY are taking our houses/ THEY are taking our jobs/ THEY get more Government money than us/ THEY get top medical care.
IT'S in their blood".

WE'VE done it every time. Every damn time. These worthless people who control this country indulge in their own political form of 'human trafficking';-using these folks as political pawns to get themselves reelected.

And we've indulged them because when these creatures in their Palace in Canberra sanction racism/ religious vilification/ and downright intolerance, we have open slather; we can really vent;-because we have been encouraged to do so by these manipulative and deceitful people.

Scum does indeed rise to the top.
____________________________

And DON'T give me the 'when in Rome' argument!

WE waste so much of OUR time being as intolerant as THEY are.
Posted by Ginx, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 12:48:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David J, and there will be no orderly refugee asylum process because people keep short-circuiting the procedures (as vetted by the UN), using our law to keep REAL refugees in the refugee camps.

That ain't fair, I don't care where you come from... Every ACTUAL refugee would get a boat here tomorrow if they could afford it, trouble is they can't... Those that can, proceed to jump the queue...

I wonder, what would the mighty refugee advocates, those champions of the downtrodden, the dispossessed, the unfortunate, etc. think if we had a orderly, fair-to-all process worked out so that everybody's children had the same right of access to world-class education, with a quota. BUT those that could afford it were repeatedly allowed to jump the queue, leaving the rest to cope as they might?

I'm sure they'd be rapt, I mean, it is EXACTLY what the majority of the so-called asylum seekers are doing now, isn't it? Well except THAT would only be education, not a matter of life or death eh?

As to calling non-PC people anything, call them whatever you feel comfortable with them responding to, I suspect they will too. Pretty much do unto others as you'd have them do unto you? Ring some bells?

As for me, am I intolerant? I am more tolerant than most people, but I have a short-fuse when pushed... that said, tolerance has limits - push those too hard and wear whatever consequences I'm willing to pay for, get it?
Posted by Custard, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 5:44:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< First you create the notion that everybody is under imminent threat by some kind of menace. >>

Yes wobbles, governments and opposition parties have a tendency to do that.

But they also do the opposite. That is, they ignore issues that are simmering away and getting steadily worse or harder to deal with until there is sufficient public outcry to make them act or until the sh!t actually hits the fan!

Arguably, Howard did this by not acting on border protection until the Tampa incident in August 2001, by which time quite urgent and decisive action was needed.

And as far as population and sustainability policy goes, progressive governments have just turned a blind eye to the ever-worsening and harder-to-deal-with situation and continued to pander to the continuous growth mantra.

Finally, we have a PM who is really acknowledging the sustainability imperative and the significance of developing the right population policy, as she outlined in the first part of her speech at the Lowy Institute a couple of days ago: http://www.lowyinstitute.org/

The population and sustainability issue is of such fundamental importance that it alone makes her government more different to that of Rudd than any Labor government has been from any Liberal government for decades!!…just as long as appropriate action ensues and she is not just spouting hollow words, that is.

----
Custard, well said, in both posts.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 6:38:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll believe any change in population policy when I see it, Ludwig, but the change in refugee policy is an improvement. Now the message to asylum seekers is "Dont pay criminals and risk your life on a dangerous voyage, because it will not give you a place ahead of other asylum seekers.". Wonderful to see some common sense. This action will protect asylum seekers, disadvantage people smugglers, and uphold the principle of treating people equally.
Posted by Fester, Wednesday, 7 July 2010 7:06:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jack M, why are you equating international students with refugees? A totally different case. International students have to have a lot of money up front, they have visas, and they have no right to stay permanently unless they meet permanent resident requirements in the normal way. They also don't stand to get killed or be tortured when they go home.

I support trying to minimise boat arrivals because leaky boats are a hazard that people who have already endured extreme danger should not have to face. What I object to is demonising boat people as if they represent the one big issue we have to deal with, and dumping the problem on someone else. The numbers are small, refugees generally end up making a positive contribution to the economy, and we contributed to the problems causing the flow of refugees by taking part in poorly managed wars.

How many of the people who advocate turning boats around are mindless advocates of foreign wars? To attack Iraq without putting the necessary resources into stabilising Afghanistan was extremely stupid, and we are now unhappy with the consequences as we see them: a relatively tiny flow of refugees compared with the total (2.9-million displaced Afghans, 96% of them in Pakistan and Iran).
Posted by PhilipM, Thursday, 8 July 2010 11:52:46 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In my last post I wrote:

<< And as far as population and sustainability policy goes, progressive governments have just turned a blind eye to the ever-worsening and harder-to-deal-with situation… >>

That should have been successive governments. There is not to much progressive about governments that fail to address sustainability and continue to rapidly take us in the opposite direction.

----
<< I'll believe any change in population policy when I see it, Ludwig. >>

Likewise Fester. I don’t hold a lot of hope. Initial indications are good, but that’s all they are – just very initial and very general indications at this stage.

<< Wonderful to see some common sense. >>

Yes it is, regarding onshore asylum seekers. Pity about the extremely flimsily based East Timorese processing centre in Gillard’s plan through. She’s getting a bucketing today for basing her plan on one phone call to the President, in which she received very tentative support for the idea. The criticism is justified. It needed to be a whole more solidly based before it became a pivotal part of a major policy.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 8 July 2010 8:17:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig, while I don't agree with how Gillard is handing the issue, to be fair, when she originally announce the proposal she was quite explicit about where it was at. Here are her actual words:

"In recent days I have discussed with President Ramos Horta of East Timor the possibility of establishing a regional processing centre for the purpose of receiving and processing of the irregular entrants to the region."

This clearly is not the announcement of a definite plan and the media have read to much into it. That said, she was extremely unwise to mention East Timor when discussions were at such an early stage. She should have said she'd started discussions with regional governments that were at too early a stage to be explicit.

I also disagree with making such a big deal of "border protection" as the main issue relating to refugees. There are many people out there with misinformed views on refugees (e.g. there's a hoax email circulating that claims refugees receive more benefits than pensioners, which is totally false; there's also a totally incorrect perception that we are dealing with a flood of refugees). Playing to these misinformed fears only supports them further.

In relation to the worldwide refugee problem (15-million total), Australia's contribution is insignificant (taking 13,000 per year. less than 0.1% of the total), and debunking these myths while she had the country's attention would have been a much better response than following Tony Abbott down the sewer.
Posted by PhilipM, Friday, 9 July 2010 10:12:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PhilipM: << There are many people out there with misinformed views on refugees (e.g. there's a hoax email circulating that claims refugees receive more benefits than pensioners, which is totally false; there's also a totally incorrect perception that we are dealing with a flood of refugees). Playing to these misinformed fears only supports them further. >>

I agree completely, Philip. The Australian Greens have kindly put together a fact sheet about asylum seekers, in order to inject some reality into the 'debate'.

<< THE FACTS ON ASYLUM SEEKERS

We had hoped that Australia had moved past this.

The Greens believe that, in the country of the fair go, we should be able to embrace a decent and compassionate attitude to refugees.

Sadly, both Labor and Liberal are once again locked in a race to the bottom, opting for harsh new policies for asylum seekers.

Both Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Liberal Leader Tony Abbott want to re-visit off-shore processing of asylum seekers.

Both leaders want policies that 'deter' asylum seekers from asking Australia for protection with policies that will be harder on refugees and more harmful to children in detention.

The Greens believe this is wrong. We recognise that the small number of people who arrive by boat seeking protection deserve to have their case heard and be treated humanely. >>

Full article at http://greens.org.au/content/facts-asylum-seekers
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 9 July 2010 10:23:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy