Sadly it seems the issues raised in my other thread of how this most recent refugee debate is going, has come true.

Even when the debate focuses specifically on a specific act by specific refugees, most people would seem to rather avoid it entirely, and instead divert the topic to the same 'refugee situation in general' topic- and we get to enjoy the same boring reruns since the 90s about
-definition of a refugee
-issue of plane vs boat arrival methods
-UN signatures
And other bits of information that completely avoid addressing the issue such as the implications of handling refugees that are both legitimate, but also a potential danger to the public whom is expected to accommodate them despite it.
Especially when that very context is what is happening at the moment.

Basically the elephant in the room.

Tough on Humanity, low on Geo-political intelligence. So much money, so much waste. Human Capital mis-spent at the cost of a poor accumalation in the field of Cultural Production.

As said here; "ASIO needs to be pulled into line. The intemperance of its decision making needs to be reformed. It is not good enough that an organisation with so many resources should take so long to obtain security clearances. In many cases illegal, as they are 'obtained' from the very authorities that the asylum seekers are fleeing. In any case, a person granted asylum does not need a security clearance; that is done as part of the refugee determination.

ASIO is double dipping with what appears to be the intention of slowing down the intake of refugees. The aim being to deter arrivals by it becoming known that long periods will be spent in detention with an outcome that is not assured; hence the desire to return asylum seekers to home countries on spurious information and analysis."

Yes we need a Global Solution but that ought not let us off the Hook.

http://www.miacat.com/

Bruce says: “A refugee is a refugee”

Yes, but few of our illegal boat arrivals are “refugees”. They are pure and simply economic migrants.

Their aim is to get into an affluent western nation –and they have unwitting accomplishes in people like Bruce.

Hearing Bruce talk about refugees I am reminded of the sophisticated western tourist who visits a market in Asia, is told there is a genuine antique on offer, haggles long and hard over it, and takes it home feeling very self satisfied. Only to find that one day while repositioning the antique the varnish has started to come off the base, and when he examines it more closely he finds a label “Made in XYZ factory, Shanghai”.

(The varnish coming off in the refugee caper would be the refugee returning home to the old country for R & R
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2010/08/21/15098766.html )

But there are two differences between the antique story buyer and the refugee story buyer:
1) Bruce doesn’t even bother to haggle, &
2) The good on offer: a genuine “refugee” wasn’t manufactured in a factory in Shanghai. It was concocted in a swat shop in Quettta, flown to Jakarta for last minute modifications, then shipped to OZ
http://www.smh.com.au/national/revealed-smuggler-arrested-over-gangs-plot-to-ship-afghans-here-20100711-105p8.html

Advocates can vilify:
--the AFP
" initial demonstrations being peaceful, it was only after the use of force, grossly excessive use of force, by the AFP, that the internees turned nasty – and who wouldn't"
--Naval personnel
You might remember the accusations that naval personnel were drunk at the time of the Christamas Island disaster ( to be fair, as far as I know, this was not a charge made by Bruce –but others of similar persuasion )
--Politicians
But apparently, like fairy tale good-guys, “asylum seekers” can do no wrong,

On a closing note, we are asked to believe that conditions on Christmas Island are Gulag like –but certain a little snippets undermine this:
“Locals say it had become common practice for detainees to jump the fence from the now-closed Aqua and Lilac compounds for a swim at the picturesque Hugh's Dale.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/christmas-island-shuts-up-shop-to-new-asylum-seekers/story-fn59niix-1226026375230

Dear SPQR,
‘Yes, but few of our illegal boat arrivals are “refugees”. They are pure and simply economic migrants.’
No, this is simply not true. And reading your post it is clear why you believe things that are not true. You are relying on The Toronto Sun and The Australian, two of the most notoriously unreliable publications in the English speaking world.
Fortunately information is available online from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and reputable academics in Australia and elsewhere.
These all confirm the validity of Bruce’s analysis.

Miacat:
"In any case, a person granted asylum does not need a security clearance; that is done as part of the refugee determination."
Could you clarify this? Because it seems you are implying that the refugee qualification overrides the possibility that THEY may be a risk to others.

Alan:
"‘Yes, but few of our illegal boat arrivals are “refugees”. They are pure and simply economic migrants.’
No, this is simply not true."
Actually SPQR does have a good point in quite a few cases. Although Australia is the closest safe country for many people from SE Asia and virtually their first stop-off; people from the Middle East are surrounded by alternative safe countries (with exception to Shia, Sufis who are surrounded by mostly anti-them nations), and actually settle in numerous safe countries for long periods while they find transport to Australia.
Thus they cease to be fleeing from danger, but fleeing from a safe, but less lucrative place to live than here.

Thanks for the response Alan Austin.

You wrote:

<< Your criticisms of Bruce’s piece seem a bit unfair. >>

I’ve reread the article and I can’t see any unfairness in my response.

<< 'So the minister should just completely not make any attempt to rein in those who started, promulgated or otherwise took significant part in the fracas, eh?’ No, Ludwig, this is not what Bruce was saying at all. Rather, that the handling of the fracas should have been done differently. >>

Yes, Bruce criticised actions taken over the riots. Far too critical in my view. But his desired response to the riots appears to have been nothing at all, but to have just let them go on until they had exhausted themselves, followed up by no punishment or even warning for anyone!

In the face of serious rioting, decisive action was called for, not a pussy-footing approach.

<< And I think you may have missed the point about Howard’s famous ‘We will determine who comes here ...’ The literal sense of that sentence is of course unexceptional….But what the dogs to whom Howard was whistling clearly understood by this euphemism was ‘We will stop the Asians, blacks and ragheads ...’

Well, if you want to read something into Howard’s statement that wasn’t there, go right ahead. It was simply a straightforward assertion, NOT a dog-whistle at all.

It really bothers me when we can’t express a view without being branded as racist, bigoted, anti-refugee or whatever, when there is NOTHING of the sort in the argument or statements that you are expressing. I’ve copped heaps of that on this forum over the last five years.

<< Bruce’s piece was not challenging the right of our government to control the borders at all. >>

Really? Well from what I can tell, he doesn’t have the slightest bit of concern about our national border security, ongoing asylum-seeker arrivals forever, or a greatly escalated rate of arrivals which would be spurred if we just let them move freely in our society and significantly shortened the average processing time.

More later (reached350wordlimit).