I'm sorry to point it out again, and no offense intended, but these arguments are a waste of breath.

As long as we legally must accept all asylum seekers for refugee assessment, the arguments about numbers, method of arrival, etc, have no substance.

All politicians have done for ten years is to behave like a dog chasing its tail - frantically trying to find a way round the law and inevitably failing, because there isn't one.

No politician will stand up and admit this - that there is actually nothing they can do about stopping and assessing boat arrivals, without breaking the law.

"Stop the boats" has as much real substance as the tooth fairy story.

Scott Morrison's latest call to restrict the numbers of boat arrivals granted refugee status is also rubbish, and no doubt he knows that. He can't do it, it's against the law.

My solution is that we have the real debate, the debate about whether or not we want to change our international commitments to asylum seekers, and our corresponding domestic law. When we've made that decision we can talk about numbers, who gets assessed, how they must arrive, etc.

Until then, it's all p*ss and wind, it's not a debate, it's propaganda used to win votes, and provoke fear and hatred.

It's causing horrible divisions in communities, and for what?

If we decide to stick with the commitments we've got, then the politicians lose the opportunity to manipulate voters with imagined threats to which they then offer imagined solutions.

It just boils down to how much you want politicians to emotionally exploit you for their own ends.

I do dearly hate it when people try to pretend the issue is about something else.

I can assure you, if our latest boat arrivals were entirely, say, Vietnamese, nobody would worry about it.

But judging by the substantial coverage of shrieking furious protesters over the free-speech publication of Danish cartoons, endorsement for theocracies to overthrow their host societies which they regard with hostility, and widely-publicised hate crime against outside communities ALONE coming from Islamic fundamentalists entering Western countries, you can keep pretending this is nothing but the latest stage of old-fashioned xenophobia, or a hysteria over terrorist bombers (not the issue) all you like- but quite frankly, don't be surprised when the issue remains the same.

And that goes for plucking anal semantics about plane arrivals (ignoring that hardly anybody actually says "boat people" except in the media), smuggling in itself, etc.

The entire concern is about Islamic fundamentalists, and nothing else. I can assure you, if we had a test demanding potential immigrants had to endorse the notion of Free speech, even to cartoons of the prophet mohammad to gain entry (thus ensuring they were seculars or moderates), the Muslims that DID come in would not be a problem in the eyes of anyone.

Having said that, we SHOULD repeal our signature to the UN and adjust domestic laws properly.

Signed, an atheist.

It's about perceptions..

One perception - boatpeople, of Islamic background, do not like us and have no intention of "fitting in", are happy to draw on all the available services, but look down on us as infidels, marry their cousins or people from "back home" - it's a convenience to be here only.

Another perception - if they are prepared to pay a lot of money to come by this route, then they have something to hide .. this applies to all boatpeople.

Finally, we worry that we have no control, unlike the Immigration gate, where we can refuse them entry or at least know who supposedly is entering. If the boatpeople could avoid detection coming in, I'm sure we would never know.

We clearly cannot control the entry of boat people, and the ALP have increased the anxiety since they relaxed the rules and have created a pull like nothing before.

If boatpeople came in their thousands, would that be OK for the people who say, "it's only a few what does it matter"? What if they come in 10s of thousands? Is that OK

What's the line where those people who support taking everyone who comes here by boat, say "oh hang on"? Is it 100,000, a million, 10 million .. these are not ridiculous numbers if there is some disaster in Indonesia for instance .. (stop them? we don't even have that many bullets in Australia)

If we suddenly have 100s of thousands coming, or millions .. who is paying for this, I didn't agree to have my lifestyle diluted by having to pay for never ending streams of uninvited immigrants.

that's why people do not like this, and further, we do not like having the UN obligation thrown up constantly in case you missed it earlier), it's just another invitation for people to abandon their homes to come here.

We should decide who comes, when and how many .. not lobby groups sneaking around the halls of parliament house with bags of ideology for sale

I could be wrong of course .. but doubt it

All those complaining about Asylum seeker policies should consider this.

After 1945, the Chifley government found itself in the Cold War against Soviet Union. De-nazification was stopped in Germany and fascists still dominated the police and military in Italy. Chifley locked Australia into the western security web and surrendered national sovereignty to the intelligence system in Washington. The Australian Labor government was knowingly admitting Nazi war criminals, combatants and collaborators as refugees.

In poured the Nazis, protected and used by ASIO to control and monitor the growing migrant groups. Together with the Croatian Ustasha, Hungarian Arrow Cross, Romanian Iron Guard, the SS controlled Slovenian militia. Groups derived from former members of these were organised with the tacit support of the Menzies and successive Liberal governments.

Lyenko Urbanchich the man who invented ethnic branch stacking in Australia. He was also the last, and most powerful, of the central and eastern European Nazi collaborators and war criminals that infiltrated the Liberal Party from the 1950s.

The peak of Urbanchich’s success was the formation of the Liberal Ethnic Council. As council president, he automatically had a seat on the state executive. The “Uglies” faction of the Liberal Party was established by Urbanchich 40 years ago.

The Uglies, control up to 30 per cent of the Liberal Party State Council votes and are the power base of Tony Abbot, Bronwyn Bishop and of John Howard and others.

Urbanchich remained unrepentant about his pro-Nazi past. He would, however, have died happy in the knowledge that his long campaign to control the NSW Liberal Party and insinuate his extremist views into its policy agenda has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams.

These are the people that are winning over the younger generations; into the short sighted bigoted
camp who fear asylum seekers and allow themselves to be manipulated by what passes itself off as our political leadership.
We condemn the Germans for looking away as the Nazis manipulatede the. But here it is happening to us twits.
Wake up you fools, before it's too late.

So, according to you John, because a former Nazi joined the Liberal Party, we are not allowed to implement criteria to restrict entry in Australia as a result of this?

Thought so.

I agree with you entirely Amicus, Thursday, 24 February 2011 12:43:09 PM

Briar Rose's thought processes run amok sometimes she does not account for swings at the ballot box and no Politician can afford to not to sniff the wind .

How many people from Oz are entering other Nations illegally ?
If there is any are they receiving 2.4x the Oz social security payment ?

I am quiet familiar with Islamic People , their fine in my experience , but none of them are fundamentalists ie; "The Toxic Ones" , perhaps Briar Rose should apply her talents to Detox the Islamic Freaks that are the root cause of all her problems , John Howard found a way to Protect his People from them, what can you show Briar Rose, what have you achieved in protecting our people from Fundamentalism ?