*1. Are the numbers of boat-people so large they present a danger to Australian autonomy?*

The idea Severin, is to act before the horse has bolted. Open
borders is not an option.

The other question that arises, is fairness in relation to other
migrants. I tried to get a doctors appointment recently and was
told that the doctor might not be here the following week, due
to so far not having his visa renewed. It took a great deal of
lobbying from the townsfolk and others, just to keep the doctor
in town. Now this guy has been doing a wonderful job for years,
and has such trouble over a visa. Yet up north we let them stream
in easily by their thousands. That hardly makes much sense.

What Severin should have said:

1. Is the boat-people issue a danger to Australian autonomy?

A: Yes – we are continually being sermonised to by “refugee advocates” that we have no say—we have signed away our right of refusal.
If our signing of the UN covenant has so tied our hands –where is our autonym?

2. Are the majority of boat-people found to be of dubious character?

A: The operative word here is FOUND –few are found to be of dubious character --But then again, we would not know --- unless they were stupid enough to keep the mobile they had used to call al-Qaeda central.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/asylum-seeker-linked-to-al-qaida/story-e6frg6nf-1225891385695
or boasted about their past
http://www.isria.com/pages/16_July_2010_76.php
( and even then, a good lawyer is likely to find a way in)

3. Does the media play a significant part in promoting an inaccurate picture of the above?

A: Yes -it’s too open to manipulation by refugee advocates – the ABC in particular has been captured by the refugee lobby .Every time the ABC runs a refugee discussion, the panel,and call-ins seem pre-programmed.

4. Does Labor appear to lose in the public's eyes on the issue of refugees?

A: Yes

5. Does it benefit the Libs to play on Labor's PERCEIVED mismanagement of refugees?

A: Yes

6. Is the language surrounding boat-refugees a prime example of Orwellian doublespeak?

A: Yes. Look no further than OLO : Jennifer Wilson-- her opponents are all “racist” CJ Morgan-- his opponents are all “racists & rednecks” Bruce Haig –His opponents are all racists Severin -- ditto

7. Should boat-refugees be an election issue?

A: Yes . The Severins of OZ do not want it to be, because the Severins of the OZ never want the public to decide on such issues . To them it’s a moral issue above and beyond the ken of the majority.
It’s best left to a unelected elite to dictate.

Refugees will be an election issue. We have seen this already with attention to marginal seats where multicultural tensions run highest.

There is certainly a lot of noise for the small trickle of refugees that come to shore, when there are more pressing issues such as health reform, infrastructure etc.

Where are the radical thinkers who are not afraid to come out with reforms to the tertiary education sector, turn education off its corporatised path. We no longer have politicians who are believers but spinners (with some exceptions). The public want representatives who really represent, who are not afraid to do what is needed to make real improvements not clayton improvements - and who will listen.

I am all for strong border protection, but that can be accomplished while at the same time ensuring humane treatment of asylum seekers when they do arrive. Those refugees found to be unsuitable or where it is impossible to verify identity are refused - simple. Border protection is not only about refugees, but ecompasses sovereignty issues as regards to flouting national regulations and corporate laws at the behest of international corporate interests.

Will someone ever make a decision on this - if not put it to the people at the election via referendum with viable and humane options.

It's becoming almost a duty to post here!!

I'm disappointed Forrest that your attention to detail is so flawed. Flawed, in that you are repeatedly missing what I and Severin (who it now appears, is my 'unholy alliance'!).

At this point I suspect if I asked you the time,you would respond,- 'a week Tuesday'!!

Talking past one another is indeed an apt description;-for THIS.

Still you have support-I shall resist the one-two scenario,-it has not started yet..?

I have no intention of repeating again..and AGAIN what parts of GY's article that I questioned. Such questions are tantamount to lighting the blue touch paper!!

However, what is relevant is that you have raised the issue NOT of the original article, but of OUR flawed opinion of aspects of it!

Something that has been criticised by GY as being off topic when raised by us. (To hell with it!! I will now use the 'us' terminology. If accused of it, why not?). We are criticised;-you are complimented..

If you are not able to see what I'm saying-then I have badly misjudged your capabilities.
___________________________________

So? I have tackled my view of the same matter as you have done.

What will I now incur?

Or in writing this last bit, will I ensure against any further rancour?

What an utterly ludicrous series of events.

Perhaps further discussing should move to 'The OLO Approach' topic?

With regard to the phenomenon of posters 'seeing what they expect to see' in Articles or posts, I find myself having to make a correction to a claim I made, in my post of Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 10:53:21 AM, that "The term 'illegals' does indeed appear in both article and discussion, ...".

NO IT DOESN'T! The term 'illegals' NOWHERE appears in the article. My mistake.

The fact of which only adds to my perplexity as to why this contretemps with respect as to terminology, and claimed disingenuousness from in one case its NON-use (that of the term 'illegals'), ever arose. Severin's comment is particularly perplexing:

"Omitting the most common adjective uttered
by neo-conservatives (I don't include all
the Libs, having fond memories of Petro Georgiou)
and then vilifying those who deign to point out
this glaring omission?"

The weighted sample whose views were being reported upon was not a sample of "neo-conservatives". It was, presumably, a sample of ordinary voters, of whom less than 5% would be expected to have been members of ANY political party, let alone either of the Coalition parties. Why is it important that a sub-set of the respondents should have been labeled or identified as 'neo-conservatives'? I doubt five of that sub-set of 60 respondents would even be able to define what a neo-conservative is. How is it disingenuous in any way that they weren't so labeled?

However, lest in any way the significance of the use of the term 'illegals' by prominent alleged neo-conservatives in possibly influencing voter intention was to have been important, its usage in turn by respondents (by around 33% of the users of the term 'immigrant') was openly admitted to in GrahamY's post of Wednesday, 14 July 2010 at 2:39:53 PM. Where is any deception?

There is only room on this Forum for one pedant, Ginx and Severin, and thats me!

I am mortally offended you have bestowed that distinction upon another, nay, positively most negatively vilified.

Youse owe me an apology!

Pelican - Will someone ever make a decision on this - if not put it to the people at the election via referendum with viable and humane options.

Thought the previous Howard Liberal government had

There is a refugee quota which any of these illegal transients can apply for

Their preferred option is to jump around that inconvenience.

There was nothing inhumane about the Liberal Pacific solution

There is plenty wrong with economic opportunists trying to jump a queue intended for genuine refugees.

Vote labor for more incompetent stuff ups and the great new party game, “musical stab the prime minister”.

Noting that Hawke and Keating are stabbing away to packed pavements in Woop-Woop, Hawke doing a 4 year rendering of the forgotten years and Keating acting in his favourite part as the grim reaper

Or

Vote Liberal Coalition for commonsense and workable solutions