There is nothing new about this being seen as a political issue, it's been like this for a very long time (although Howard made an art of expoliting it) It is easy to pick out some recent comments by advocates to make an argument but the work many people do is much broader and on many levels. You exclude most of the work that has been done by people over the past decade and ignore the fact of the media reporting selectively on what is being said. Most of the comments you focus on are responses to the propaganda that is spread and it is not unimportant that the facts are provided to correct misinformation.
An emotional agrument supporting refguees is met with labels of 'loony lefties' and being told you are too emotional about the subject. Facts do change the minds of some sections of the community but addressing the irrational emotion of people who think all their problems are caused by a few thousand people on boats is much harder. I wish you luck in shifting the views of people who don't care if 'boatpeople'are treated fairly or not, and I am sure we can look forward to the work you contribute in this area in the future. This is not work for 'others' to do, refugee advocates are simply 'people' and if you feel strongly it is what you need to be doing. Rather than saying what is needed perhaps you could provide an example of how that works and put it to the test?

I have the most total disagreement with you Osmond.

The most humane policy towards refugees would be one that closes down onshore asylum seeking entirely and considerably boosts Australia’s offshore refugee and aid programs.

Yes it is hard for those asylum seekers who have come here by boat who are currently caught in the middle of Rudd’s absurd weakening of border-protection and the necessary reaffirming of strong border-control. But to accommodate them as you wish would only lead to more arrivals, in bigger numbers, for ever more.

The cost of processing onshore asylum seekers is massive. Ten or a hundred times as many very needy people could be very significantly assisted with this sort of expenditure if it was channelled through our offshore programs.

The number of onshore asylum seekers is small. But there is no doubt that the number would vastly increase if we were to further weaken our policies. Even Rudd’s quite small retrograde steps have made a huge difference to the number of arrivals.

If we were to develop your sort of humane policy towards asylum seekers, what do you think would happen?

We’d very quickly have many thousands more of them to deal with. The Australian public would very quickly get jack of it and demand a much tougher stance. Our politicians would oblige and there would be thousands of people caught in the middle, and perhaps thousands more on their way, in dangerous rickety boats.

No Osmond, we need to stop the boats entirely, and concentrate our humanitarian efforts elsewhere, especially on the causal factors of refugeeism and on resettling many more of the neediest people in Australia.

We should be spending at least the UN recommended 0.7% of our GDP on genuine aid and approximately doubling our current refugee intake...and closing down onshore asylum seeking completely.

when such "queue-jumping" refugees land in British Columbia, they are processed onshore but are allowed to earn a living, thus easing the cost to the taxpayer.

Why hasn't the government got the nous - or the humanity - to do that? This also applies with offenders incarcerated for all sorts of petty crimes or awaiting trial, and even those serving sentences. I don't mean road gangs, but some useful productive work.

The same points you've made here could be made about many 'left' issues. Too often those on the side of social justice dismiss counter views as stupid, uneducated, bogan etc without really taking up the argument and winning it. I would say the best approach is a combination of facts (with a strong emphasis on economics) mixed with the more emotive elements that you describe.

This article is rubbish and it refuses to see the elephant in the room:

That is, that over the past few decades we have allowed in, through some channel, many extreme-religious, xenophobic, dishonest, anti-western, anti-semetic, criminally inclined persons, and these were often through refugee channels or corresponding to 'fairer' changes in refugee allowances.

Now believe it or not, many people have a logical concern about this; and aren't particularly concerned about whether they did so through a plane, or that some official, half a century ago signed what seems to be a poorly-conceived document without anybody's permission, as somehow having any relevance whatsoever to this. Nor will any amount of 'emotion' (which the anti-side would more easily stick onto the PRO side) is going to change this.

This bit in the middle was interesting:
"Refugee advocates have assumed that rational thought, evidence and facts will ultimately triumph. If this was the case, we would not have punitive, ineffective welfare policies,"
"ineffective"
Care to explain?

" there would be a land tax and we would have a carbon cap-and-trade system by now."
No.
I think I've seen enough, thanks.
Firstly, we HAVE a land tax, secondly, carbon trading is moronic- it achieves no environmental result, just allows a third party to make a profit on the 'trading' the increased rates on carbon.

Even had you not shot yourself in the foot with your social and economic policies, you have failed to make a case for refugees.

But then again, as a member of young labor, making a case isn't what you people do, so much as pander a set policy discourse to the gullible (and of course, endorse party policy as correct).

Here we can see why the labor party is in it's death throws.

The Australian "workers" party has been taken over by all sorts of activists, most of whom have little, if any interest in the workers, or any other Australian, other than the elites of course.

Perhaps the rapid expansion of the universities, & their academics, & fellow travelers is to blame. The party found a ready market, & large voter base there, but ultimately lost it's way, & control of it's very self.

I can not imagine a train driver becoming the leader of today's Labor, more is the pity.

So we get this bloke. One who couldn't give a damn about Ozzie's, or workers, but uses them to get an income, & a profile. I wonder when he'll be standing for parliament, & who for. Will those silly workers let him use them that far?

We may not need another, but he is a bl00dy good reason to stop the boats.

"That is, that over the past few decades we have allowed in, through some channel, many extreme-religious, xenophobic, dishonest, anti-western, anti-semetic, criminally inclined persons,...."

I don't think that there is much that either you or I can do about Labor Party preselection.

This was a really great article. It makes a lot of common sense points. I'm kinda surprised that a union official wrote it! But I mean that in a nice way.

Osmond...how about some justice and fairness for Australian ! ?

How about adopting the Swiss model, if anyone is sponsored to come here, (whether they be flunky lawyers in the assylum industry or lobby groups.. or you)

I think all those supporting country shoppers should pay the legal bills and repatriation costs to send them back.

That to me is very very fair and quite just.

"I think all those supporting country shoppers should pay the legal bills and repatriation costs to send them back."

What an absurdly contradictory statement. Those of us who support asylum seekers want them to STAY HERE. So why should we pay to send them back?

You're the who wants to send them back. YOU pay for it.

Al Gore might be rich but he might need to deal with a few inconvenient facts :-P
Just like Osmond pointed out.

Hasbeen states that the labor party is in it's death throws having been taken over by all sorts of activists, most of whom have little, if any interest in the workers, or any other Australian.

I am in agreement that it has been taken over by all sorts of activists, however, reports of its death are premature. However, the Labor Party does not represent the working classes any more.

Michael Thompson wrote an informative book on this topic entitled "Labor Without Class: The Gentrification of the ALP".

An article on Michael Thompson appeared in the Weekend Australian 28/29 September as follows:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/my-party-was-trashed-by-the-middle-class/story-fn59niix-1225910722814

The Labor party has been taken over by activists? How come they seem so lacking in ideas then?

@ALGOREisRICH - we're already paying their legal bills and repatriation costs. That's the point, I'd rather not.

Nothing in Osmands article is new, it’s just a re-hash of the tired old drivel that we’ve heard (and debunked) a thousand times before.

The most discussion-worthy tit bit that might arise from it is “Why are our universities turning out so many soppy and gullible types who get hooked on the first “social justice” meme that comes their way, and thereafter are little better than automatons ( just imagine if their energy and talent had been re-directed into hard science--we’d probably have had a cure for cancer by now!)

Osmond claims that the public has lost sympathy with the Elysium seekers narrative because the advocates case has relied on “complex technical arguments”, which the public found too cerebral to follow and that advocates need to get a more emotive (read: devious) – incredible!

Well, advocates have never been short on story telling ( or deviousness!) Story telling has always been a major component in their arsenal –in many cases their ONLY real weapon. The problem is that people are a waking up that it is just that: STORIES /MAKE BELIEVE and not reflective of the reality.

Let’s look at some of these realities:
-- We saw how the hijackers of the Tampa and the Oceanic Viking had a short list of countries which THEY would accept –and all on that list were (surprise! ,surprise!) affluent western countries!
--We saw how they usually jetted into Indonesia or Malaysia, changed into civvies, then boated the rest of the way—so as to appear suitably poor and unwashed.
-- We heard how they used mobiles to call 000, for rescue (and perhaps, order pizza!) from off the WA coast.

-- We saw how some –after gaining sanctuary – embraced the causes/groups that they were supposedly running from ---which saw them returning to wage war overseas –or worse, seeking to wage war in OZ (or the UK, Spain or the US!)
-- We saw how MANY, perhaps MOST, returned to their former homelands on VFR,
-- We are seeing at the present moment the comical situation where while the UN has deemed it sufficiently safe to be repatriating refugees from India back to Sri Lanka, our uber-humane advocates in OZ, are still crying open the doors to them!
--We are also seeing at this very moment in the NT that these – potential good citizen material --exploit every legal loop hole to the max, but when things don’t go the way they want, riot, break facilities & fittings, blow up boats endangering all –and, if finally forced to go home , simply return and return and return again till some bureaucrat finds it easier to give them entry.

But of course, I don’t expect Osmand saw any of this –He was too busy learning his lines!

Elysium seeker advocacy, is not the noble cause it is made out to be. It panders to one of the most devious, dirty scams around ---but it does have a strong multiplier affect.
--The people smugglers get a wad of money.
-- The Elysium seekers get upgraded from a one star to five star life style –truly they have found Elysium!
--The advocates get five minutes of the warm-and-fuzzies , & a cushy as a researcher for a union or welfare group.

The only real losers are the Australian public –who get saddled with the bill ,then –double whammy!—have to endure a life time of cultural sensitive provisions that seeks to ensure the new comers get better than equal opportunity.

Nothing in Horus' comment above is new, it’s just a re-hash of the tired old bigoted drivel that we’ve heard (and debunked) a thousand times before.

Yawn.

Oh dear! (:>(

What about my post then CJ? Anything there worth commenting on?

Hi Ludwig - while you're no bigot, when it comes to asylum seekers I think you're pretty obtuse, albeit for other reasons. We've been through this a zillion times, and we disagree.

I've no desire to go the rounds with you yet again about 'boat people'. In the scheme of things, they're a non-issue in population terms, and I think that we should afford all legitimate refugees who get here asylum. Further, abolish the so-called 'skilled' migration scheme and boost offshore processing. Get rid of the baby bonus. Bla bla.

Meantime, behave like decent, compassionate humans. There's really no point or future if we don't. Suffice to say that I find it quite obscene and sad that the plight of desperate people is such a political football in Australia.

On the other hand, when our old friend Horus posts yet another bigoted diatribe, I'm occasionally compelled to lampoon him, if nothing else. I suspect that he enjoys the attention ;)

Yes Ludwig...in the world CJ inhabits, you are a bigoted racist :)

I'm so glad I live in the real world where concern over people exploiting our generosity is seen as fairmindedness and responsible stewardship of that freedom.

The point CJ has yet to learn is that "chucking stuff out there" and hoping some of it will stick is just wasted time with those of us who have clear thinking on such issues.

He might think concerns about country shoppers have been debunked..but it's only in that narrow bigoted racist anti Australian world 'he' lives in.

Boazy

What part of

"Hi Ludwig - while you're no bigot, when it comes to asylum seekers I think you're pretty obtuse, albeit for other reasons. We've been through this a zillion times, and we disagree."

Did you not read?

At no point did CJM claim that Ludwig "Yes Ludwig...in the world CJ inhabits, you are a bigoted racist :)"

Man, you are so steeped in Christian doublethink, you wouldn't know the truth even if it took a dump on you, which, looking at the preceding posts from Ludwig and CJM I believe it has - a big smelly one.

And don't try to claim you wuz only "jokin'" - we all know you too well for that.

Asylum seekers are not a crisis issue, despite the rhetoric from both major parties. They would not even cost as much as they have been were we to assess their claims onshore as opposed to the expense of running off-shore detention centres.

Now go take a long hot shower - you're a bit on the nose, mate.

Heres some news from the UN

http://www.unhcr.org/4c657ec69.html

Wonder how many from here will return to Sri Lanka?

Not many I venture, life is too good here.They will say 'to hell' with their roots.

Unless, like Canada, where it is reported that 71% of Sri Lankans go to Sri Lanka for holidays after going to Canada and claiming asylum.

Yep true blue refugees arn't they.

What an enlightening and humanist thinking, Osmond. Your views reflect that of a person with a highly evolved mind, tinged with wisdom. I have often heard several High Court Judges talk and act in such compassionate and humane manner. This has certainly got to do with education. Somehow I am ashamed to read the views of those that want boats turned back, or express fear of their religion (we were once shackled by religious bigotry),dishonest and criminally inclined (we began as a penal colony, for heaven's sake!) anti-western (but we can exhibit ant- aboriginal/anti Asian behaviour), etc. I am certain that these people, too, have a right to express their views as well and valid within that context. I am, nevertheless, saddened that our attempt at advancing the level of real education has failed some sections of our Australian public. There are lots Aussies that support your view but don’t have your guts or determination to make public those views. Well done, Osmond and keep up the good work!

<< Hi Ludwig - while you're no bigot, when it comes to asylum seekers I think you're pretty obtuse…. >>

CJ, this comment is a bit obscure. Obtuse like how?

<< We've been through this a zillion times, and we disagree. >>

Yeah but just what is it that we actually disagree on?

I mean, we agree that asylum seekers are a non-issue in population terms, that we should boost offshore refugee processing, abolish the baby bonus and greatly reduce skilled migration.

<< …I think that we should afford all legitimate refugees who get here asylum >>

It would be good. But it is just so grossly impractical, as it would immediately trigger a major influx and ongoing very high level of arrivals, which would cause Australian citizens and hence politicians to harden their attitude towards them….you know the story.

Ludwig

"But it is just so grossly impractical, as it would immediately trigger a major influx"

Que?

Have you any idea just how difficult it is to reach our wide brown land by leaky boat? Given it ANY thought at all? The only "major influx" is the one that continues to happen and that is people arriving by plane.

Treating refugees from war zones with compassion instead of as criminals, will not make any difference to the numbers seeking asylum.

I can see now that CJM had good reason for being "obscure" about your "obtuse" reasoning against a fair go for boat people. I'm not claiming you're racist but you seem to have swallowed the whole "shriek horror we're doomed by people in leaky boats" propaganda.

Gullible. T-Bot loves you.

Dear Ms Rotten

At the time of the Tampa incident in August 2001, the number of boats arriving in our northern waters was rapidly increasing. Strong action by Howard prevented a major increase in arrivals.

Rudd’s weakening of border policy led directly to a big increase in the number of arrivals.

If we had an open-door policy, we’d have a full-blown influx of hundreds of boats a month, in an ongoing manner. No two ways about that.

I can’t understand how anyone can fail to see this.

<< The only "major influx" is the one that continues to happen and that is people arriving by plane. >>

There is no major influx from people arriving by plane. Visa overstayers eventually return. There is something like 50 000 in the country at any one time. That’s not 50 000 added to our population each year.

It is just nonsensical for Australia to leave our northern borders open and to not strive to close down asylum seeking entirely.

If we accept a small number, we have to be very careful in the way that we treat them so that they get dealt with humanely without spurring an increase in arrivals.

If we accept a large number, there’ll be a backlash from the general community and politicians, for sure! This will just lead to a bigger number getting caught in the middle of a situation in which deterrence to further arrivals becomes very important.

Why you would want this haphazard business to continue rather than to promote a much better input into refugee issues through our formal aid programs, through the UN or bilaterally with various countries, is just beyond me.

THIS is what all humanitarian people who are concerned about refugees should be pushing for. And yet, despite the outcry about stopping onshore asylum seeking from some people, there is nothing like the equivalent demand from them for Australia to increase its input into offshore refugee issues.

This could be a long discussion. I hope you’re up for it. I certainly am. I’ve done it numerous times on this forum.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I would wish all those posting comments first understood what the constitution really stands for.
See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog at http://www.scribdd.com/InspectorRiakti and the fact that the constitution is above everything.
.
The so to say bleeding heart policies are to no avail if it is contrary to the constitution.
As I suggested long ago to Kevin Rudd resolve the refugee issue by handing them all over to the United Nations! It set the standards of care and so can do it.
We are saved the huge expenses to cater for them and once they learn the English language and our culture, etc, then they can through the United Nations apply to be permitted to settle in Australia. And those longest in a camp should be the first to be entitled to apply. That to me is more humane as to avoid those having money to go before those who have waited for so long!

So Johnny Rotten, you are not going to take me up on this debate.

I take it then that you’ve seen the error of your ways regarding the comments made in your last post.

Miss Ludwig

Unlike you I have a life and am not constantly monitoring these pages.

Treating asylum seekers as criminals does not stop people seeking asylum as you well know. The numbers arriving in boats reflect the current conditions from where people are fleeing.

As you admit you have been over this topic time and time again - during which time we still receive the majority of asylum seekers by plane the percentage of arrivals by boat remains low, therefore assessing claims onshore would be a cheaper and more humane option - something that repeatedly escapes you.

That 90% of boat people are assessed as genuine refugees also flies over your head.

Confirmation of the above is easily sourced from a variety of reliable news services - that don't include nutters like Andrew Bolt.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/boat-arrivals-are-a-drop-in-the-ocean-20100606-xn3u.html?comments=80

"The first assumption is that Australia is about to be flooded with boat arrivals. This anxiety is not supported by the numbers. About 4500 asylum seekers have arrived by boat in the past year. Compare this to 200,000 new permanent residents each year and about 50,000 visa overstayers from such places as New Zealand, Britain and the US.

Last year, Australia received only 1.6 per cent of the asylum applications made across 44 industrialised nations. This is no surprise, as the vast majority of refugees remain in their region of origin. There is no reason to suspect that significant numbers of refugees will make their way here.

There is also an assumption that asylum seekers pose some ill-defined risk independent of their numbers. They do not constitute a threat to Australia's health or security. Humane refugee policies adopted by both parties throughout the 1970s and early '80s facilitated, without crisis or fanfare, the successful integration of refugees, many of whom have come to make a valuable contribution to Australian life."

I am not interested in pursuing your argument further - you are incapable of learning anything new and are simply trolling.

Thanks for the response Johnny.

<< Unlike you I have a life and am not constantly monitoring these pages. >>

Oh please! You’ve been going hell for leather on other threads! Come on, you ran away with your tail between your legs on this one.

So now, reluctantly, you’ve offered a bit more insight into your views on this subject. Thanks. But why, if you are not interested in debating the subject?

Given that you do appear to have some knowledge of this issue and a reasonable depth of feeling about it, it begs the question: why don’t you want to debate it?

Why did you respond to me in the first place? Why are you on OLO if not for this sort of thing?

While you have proffered a few good comments, you have failed to respond to a large and enormously important part of my argument, which I’ll repeat here:

< Why you would want this haphazard business to continue rather than to promote a much better input into refugee issues through our formal aid programs, through the UN or bilaterally with various countries, is just beyond me.

THIS is what all humanitarian people who are concerned about refugees should be pushing for. And yet, despite the outcry about stopping onshore asylum seeking from some people, there is nothing like the equivalent demand from them for Australia to increase its input into offshore refugee issues. >

I’m keen to hear your views on this. But I guess I’ll be hearing only silence!