Yes it is a problem? So also is forcing people with very different fundamental belief systems; cultural and religious, to live side by side; or worse, in ungovernable ghettoes.
Yes the irregular arrivals are a problem, but so also is creating quite massive social discord in our country!
Other nations are being emptied of the native sons and daughters, simply because they longer fit in the social mores.
Walk down any street in London and look for a gent wearing a bowler hat and carrying a brolly? And if you do see one, see how many heads swing around to study what is now a fairly rare phenomenon.
Look at the rise and rise of once reviled national socialist parties! Do we want that here?
Of course we have an absolute right to create the rules and regs that we live by; and indeed, our intended migrant intake.
We would much rather take in English speaking Christians, than those diametrically opposed to our beliefs and or political system; and intermarriage!
We would rather take in peoples willing to accept and adopt our social norms, rather than stone age bigots, trying to impose their own medial belief system and social mores, as the dominant culture? A bit like the recalcitrant tail that seems to want to wag the dog?
I would rather spend the billions now allocated, to improving the conditions these people leave, and set them up in business over there, than have them force themselves on us; as extremely unwelcome and demanding guests, who like some relatives, believe they have an absolute right to simply arrive unannounced; and, expect endless hospitality.
The Author may not like the Malaysian solution, but it doesn't automatically include incarceration; and, has already shown, that it could very effectively deter irregular arrivals and the drownings.
Those that overstay their visas; are automatically incarcerated and deported; and, are precluded from making any migration application for not less than two years, even if they speak excellent English and have adopted our social mores as their own! Rhrosty.

Reading this ...

"We would rather take in peoples willing to accept and adopt our social norms, rather than stone age bigots, trying to impose their own medial belief system and social mores, as the dominant culture? A bit like the recalcitrant tail that seems to want to wag the dog?"

... makes me wonder which bit of the dog is wagging. I don't think it's the tail.

<<Yes it is a problem? So also is forcing people with very different fundamental belief systems; cultural and religious, to live side by side; or worse, in ungovernable ghettoes.>>

Forcing people with very different fundamental belief systems to live side by side is indeed a problem - and it happens here all the time. In comparison, forcing people to live in ghettos is better, but better still is ALLOWING (rather than forcing) people to live in ghettos. Why is that a problem?

Rhrosty proceeds to mention the words "we" and "ours" 5 times each, without telling who those "us" (mentioned just once) are.

Who then is this mysterious "us"?
Who constitutes that elite with the higher "social mores"?
What is it, or by whose decree, that makes those specific mores so high that they entitle their upholders to own a whole continent and enforce their values and culture on all its inhabitants?
Isn't that just what Rhrosty accuses others of - "trying to impose their own medial belief system and social mores, as the dominant culture", with the exception of the adjective "medial"?
Who and What then makes the elite's belief noble and the other's belief medial?

It was not by high morals that Australia was acquired by English-speaking Christians - it was won by the sword and the gun, not unlike the way that Muslims, for example, won most of the middle east, Spaniards won South America and the Hans won China.

It is an honourable position to say the truth: "Veni Vidi Vici" - I am the lion, I am stronger, so therefore I will have the best share of the land.

It is however cowardly to attempt to cover the truth with non-existent claims to moral superiority.

What a verbose pile of tripe.

One can only assume from that rubbish, that Richard has upset some of the powers that be, in his adopted homeland, & is producing this stuff, in an attempt to curry some favour.

Giving them money, just like the boat people do, works much better than rubbish articles in that land of patronage Richard. Give it a try.

Hasbeen

Flavouring some curry is a far more beneficial pursuit.

What an article. Such unmitigated rubbish.

What started out as a reasonable article re the stupidity of todays all too common media and politician propagated jingoistic nationalism descended into the usual labor propaganda of 'it's all Tony's fault'.

Get over it Richard.

Howard's Pacific Solution, which Abbott will return to, worked.

All you've done, with this piece of labor propaganda, is highlight Labor's bankruptcy on this issue and the mindless duplicity and lack of decency, in advocating the disgraceful Malaysian solution, by Labor leftie supporters such as Rhosty.

Mate the important issues which currently have the electorate focus are Thompson and Slipper.

Is that Tony's fault too?

BTW 3 boats and 300 people arrived by boat this weekend.

Which of course is Tony's fault too. Isn't it?

Grow a brain Richard. And make it fit with your head.

Hey nutter You have answered all of your own questions there. Of course he is to blame, haven't you heard of NO, pledges in blood, crap.
Common sense will prevail, when we get some policies from the noalition.
That is if they can put something together. They are not allowed to say to much, it could be misinterpreted.
Two more failed attempts at suspension of standing orders yesterday, that was attempt number 50 and 51,
The noalition have not won a round yet. All they are capable of is talking down the economy and inflating the carbon tax.