I've lived in Port Moresby, Papua and New Guinea and in many ways, it is paradise. Once you are in the suburbs or out for a stroll you can't go 50 metres without finding some tropical fruit growing wild. And while there is a high level of crime from people in Moresby and Madang who lack direction and leadership there are also huge opportunities for those with ambition and enterprise. PNG needs an influx of people with diverse ideas.

We need to slow down ALL immigration to Australia to get a flat or negative population growth. We don't have the water. And while it is only our lawns dying now in Summer because of water restrictions the continued growth of our population will lead to further restrictions. This is a huge land mass and people can be forgiven for believing we have plenty of room but in reality it is just not true.

I don't think that what Rudd has done is morally bankrupt any more than when a card player alerts the room to someone cheating. I understand your point concerning the current convention but what is politically palatable to the Australian people will differ depending upon how aware they are of Europe's current immigration problems where the ethnic minorities are fast becoming majorities in many areas and refusing to accept the local language, the customs, the culture or the laws of the country they have immigrated to. We cannot allow immigration to continue to overwhelm our ability to assimilate them as Australians.

We must accept that what Rudd has done was necessary to stop those merely looking for a better deal. The deception being perpetrated is that PNG is some horrible place and it is true that if only a handful go there life would be challenging for them. However, if 20,000 per year were taken from the refugee camps and shipped to PNG they would find life very good in PNG.

So it's ok for the Greens and their supporters to argue that a 3% death rate is an acceptable trade off for for a purist policy which gives an open go for the people smugglers to ply their lethal trade

Not even Abbott and Morrison are that cynical

There's only one solution: build a land bridge between Queensland and Papua and then people from anywhere can just walk here.

That might keep the bleeding hearts happy all though it probably wouldn't. They would demand a moving foot-way so that walking wouldn't be necessary and a plethora of luxury apartments be built on the tip of the Banana State to house the flood of weary seekers.

We could then insist the bleeding hearts open their homes to house the seekers who might well bring their horses and camels with them.

I suppose when Australia's population reaches ninety five million in a couple of years someone will say we have too many people.

Just shows how hard people are to please!

Well written, clear articulation of the major issues associated with the policy. Perhaps the best article I have read in the past few days. It is good to read ones own thaughts so clearly expressed :)

"That it's brilliant politics is a mark of how debased the politics of the boats has become..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/22/captain-rudd-australia-depths-shame?CMP=twt_fd

One problem: all the boat people won't be going to PNG. PNG Prime Minister O'Neill has had to 'clarify' the details of the agreement after Rudd, as usual, over claimed to the point of deception. What will actually happen is that PNG will resettle genuine refugees. Boat people who are not genuine refugees are "Australia's problem" said O'Neill. In addition, PNG will resettle refugees up to the limits of its capacity and at Australia's cost. Rudd has refused to detail the numerical limits of the PNG agreement and the cost to the Australian taxpayer.

If all this sounds familiar, remember the East Timor solution, also announced just prior to an election and never implemented. This 'solution' won't happen either, neither will the laughable 'reforms' to the ALP nor the ETS. Not even Kevin can fool 50.01% of the people all the time.

Most sensible analysis of the refugees issue I have read yet Mirko.
Yes we should be helping the poorest, most needy refugees, not the most pushy.

"......... Rudd must also state that plane arrivals will not be eligible for refugee settlement. He should then increase the humanitarian intake to at least 40,000 and fill all of these places with those subsisting on the margins of life in refugee camps"......totally agree.

Keating and others started the 'we want the rich and pushy' trend by allowing in migrants who had 200,000 plus to invest.

This is the opposite of the policies that brought our best migrants - post war refugees wanting to start a new life and willing to work at anything to do it.

Similarly I think 'those subsisting on the margins of life...' would make better migrants than those with the money to pay for boats and certainly better than those that can pay for air tickets.

The number you quote - 43m refugees - it's a stupendously cruel and huge problem. Australia can only solve so much of it and help make life better in the countries from which the rest want to escape - through appropriate aid.

My guess is that New Guinea will soon be New Indonesia if the boat arrivals continue in those numbers. There'll be mosques popping up all over the island.
I wonder how many silverlings Rudd got for that.

There are some details of Rudd's scheme that I still trying to clarify. Is it correct the before being granted permanent residence in New Guinea the boat people will have to have a bone through their nose?

This from Anthony Lowenstein in The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/22/vulture-capitalism-papua-new-guinea-australia#comment-25338131

>>Veteran ABC journalist Sean Dorney rightly worries about social cohesion in PNG with the inevitable influx of thousands of people>>

Rightly worried about social cohesion?

So let me get this straight. When someone in Australia raises the issue of "social cohesion" in a debate about immigration or asylum seeker intake they are "racists" and "Islamo-phobes"?

But when an ABC reporter raises the same issue with regard to PNG…?

"Social Cohesion" was the justification for the White Australia policy.

This from the ABC.

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's fresh asylum seeker deal to 'shock' Papua New Guineans:

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2013-07-19/prime-minister-kevin-rudds-fresh-asylum-seeker-deal-to-shock-papua-new-guineans/1164060

Quote:

>>There is also the issue of culture shock - likely from both sides. Many of these people found to be genuine refugees will have little in common with Papua New Guineans.

PNG is overwhelmingly Christian.>>

Australia is overwhelmingly Christian / secular.

Summary of what I heard on ABC radio this morning:

They sent a reporter around asking the locals what they thought about this. The reaction was uniformly negative except for a small crowd outside a mosque.

Many locals worried about an influx of Muslims.

Interesting.

Full disclosure:

I don't think immigration per se destroys social cohesion.

Multiculturalism does.

It is not politically brilliant at all, it is racist garbage.

Marilyn Shepherd, Monday, 22 July 2013 4:07:49 PM:

>>It is not politically brilliant at all, it is racist garbage.>>

LOL

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Marilyn.

Look I am sick to death of the dissaffected idiots from all sides who are , perhaps unintentionally, creating snd fostering the anger, incivility, and ge neral nastiness in our community.
This disgraceful disregard of our egalitarian traditions is hurting our community. We need to return to our old ways. Where everyones opinion was allowed to be expressed and was treated with respect ... not abuse.
Where everyones opinion was valued as a contribution.
Where the best regarded contributions were valued because of they were seen as thoughtful and tended to bring together our community ... not dividing it.
Where all contributions were reasoned and factual ... not slogans nor deliberate lies or fudging.
Where our leaders actually put the well being and cohesion of our community by compromise rather than chest beating bravado and actually formulated policy that engendered s meeting of minds rsther than polarising.

I have a view of whay should occut. I have tried to express it on several occassions but have found the intransisnce I've encountered sbsolutely horrible and a blight on our community.
Your oitbusts don't fit well in my community Marilyn

Good article Mirko. I agree with it all, except…

I can’t see what is morally bankrupt about the new policy. To allow the continuation of people smuggling, deaths at sea and all the other negative factors would be morally bankrupt. Indeed Rudd’s stimulation of the renewed onshore asylum seeking movement in 2008 was highly morally suspect.

And I disagree with the idea of raising the refugee intake to 40 000, let alone progressively higher after that.

What we should be doing is reducing total immigration to net zero, and then declaring something like 75% of that to be refugees. So if the total immigration intake was 30 000, ~24 000 would be refugees. The total immigration intake and thus the refugee intake would vary as the emigration rate varied if it was to stay at net zero. A net zero immigration intake would be considerably higher than that for the first few years, slowly reducing down to a +/-stable level in the order of 30 000.

And we should be boosting and refining our international aid efforts, especially directed at refugee and sustainability issues.

Marilyn.

Look I am sick to death of the dissaffected idiots from all sides who are , perhaps unintentionally, creating snd fostering the anger, incivility, and ge neral nastiness in our community.
This disgraceful disregard of our egalitarian traditions is hurting our community. We need to return to our old ways. Where everyones opinion was allowed to be expressed and was treated with respect ... not abuse.
Where everyones opinion was valued as a contribution.
Where the best contributions were valued because of they were seen as bringing together our community ... not dividing it.
Where all contributions were reasoned and factual ... not slogans nor deliberate lies or fudging.
Where our leaders actually put the well being and cohesion of our community by compromise rather than chest beating bravado and actually formulated policy that engendered s meeting of minds rsther than polarising.

I have a view of whay should occut. I have tried to express it on several occassions but have found the intransisnce I've encountered sbsolutely horrible and a blight on our community.
Your oitbusts don't fit well in my community Marilyn

Bob Smythe....Sensible comment...

I agree with all of your article with exception of raising the refugee quota and applying the " morally bankrupt " tag to the outsourcing policy.
Raising the quota proposal appears to be nothing more than a guilt trip. Is this so that Australia may "look good" internationally , by throwing into the mix a kind of consolation prize to refugees? What is the rationale?
The refugee intake ( by both sea and air) must take into account the growing concern in Australia for a sustainable population policy, on the back of substantial data documenting the environmental constraints to endless population growth.
Rudd's solution to this peaceful invasion is quite astute. Finally he has responded to the substantial percentage of Australians who view the present influx of irregular arrivals with considerable suspicion as to their bona fides

Bob Smythe, you had better be careful if you go back to PNG. You don't appear to understand a large slice of the culture. You see someone owns every one of those fruit trees, even if they are deep in the jungle. You won't find even one, without a path used to harvest the produce, leading to it. Touch them at your peril.

Of course the same would apply to any boat people settled there, & from my observation, a great deal of conflict is likely to arise because of their attitude. If I was a PNG citizen I would already be rioting in the street. There is not one single advantage to the majority of the countries normal citizens with this policy, just strife.

I can't go along with any of Mirko's idea of increasing refugee numbers, particularly from the lowest rank of people. It is time to realize we should never bring to Oz for any reason, anyone who can not integrate into the population within a few years.

We already have no go areas, due to our kindly refugee policies of the past, & the attitudes of those refugees.

We already have suburbs that are ungovernable or police-able, due to language barriers, & a ghetto mentality of the residents.

How much worse, & more expensive & damaging can we allow this kindness to get, before it turns to war in the streets.

We are still a semi-civilized ape, regardless what the lefty do gooders would like to think of themselves. Too much push & shove will bring this fact all too well to the fore.

Perhaps the continuation of Australia's 1.2 million a day since 1975 plus some add-on money is an incentive for PNG to accommodate Rudd's wishes to take in those people. But, I can't help the feeling that it is a very disastrously wrong move to put them at our doorstep in larger numbers than anyone would think possible at this stage. Australia is gradually hemming itself in. Luckily too many are too silly to realise so I suppose they won't realise it even when it hits them as long as they have their football.

Apparently there is no ‘add-on’ money, Indi.

Immigration Minister Tony Burke said adamantly this evening on ABC’s 7.30 that there will be no extra expense and that all costs will come from within the existing aid budget to PNG.

Well… he did say it very assertively!!

Ludwig - Is this from the NO CARBON TAX people.

am absolutely morally appalled at the tone of Mirko Bagaric's article about Rudd's so-called refugee solution titled "Rudd's refugee solution: politically brilliant, morally bankrupt".

Without even bothering to dive into the obvious moral sespit that no doubt dwells within the body of the article, the title alone is enough
to alarm, in no way different to a title that hypothetically may have been written by a 1943 Nazi scholar regarding culture and race if it was titled "White Western superiority and the way to Mould the Coloured nations".

First, Mirko claims that Rudd's solution to state to the Australian voters that ANY new refugee boats persons will be forced to settle in Papua and not Australia, without consideration for the implications of this statements, that Papua (to Rudd, Mirko and suporters must be some "dung-heap" that no-one would wish to live in, even if you are apparently fleeing from imminent death and perpetual political persecution.

Second, for Mirko to claim that the scheme is "Politically Brilliant", without even reading the filthy article I already comprehend that this implies that the Australian voters who remain "swing voters" (who also happen to be moslty working class Anglos and other European descendants from Italy, Greece etc whose familys have been here fore generations) are totally stupid and easily manipulated not to mention the presumtions that they are racist is invovled in their calculations.

This is sick, it is classist, prejudiced, biased, and worst of all these are all completely unfounded since what evidence shows that voters who are "concerned" about refugee/immigration policy must be racists also? All that the left ever refer to is some inarticulate and sometimes uneducated persons who may not properly express the meaning of their frustration when they say "send the mussies back to the desert" etc., yet they never stop to consider the possiblity that, like a Palestinian who throws rocks at Israli citizens and openly expresses that "all Jews should die" . . . .

Part II from Moiteeki,

perhaps the so-called "uneducated Aussies" like the "Palestinians" are simply not articalting their concerns enough and the job of the journalist is to press further to attempt to uncover this, as they always and overwhelmingly do and accept with Palestinians and any other seemingly racist, tribal and bigotted fued in non-white nations.

However, ONLY when a white/Western cultural group speaks in such terms does a Mirgic or the Left step forward and proclaim that such behaviour is "racist" and unacceptable. I wonder, do these same Leftists also say that the Papaun's who have nationalistic sentiments and who are against Rudd's proposal, call these "dark natives" racists?

Or, as Mirgic thinks Rudd is brilliant politically, indicating that he thinks that the swinging voters (mostly Anglo Aussies) will be stupified by the words "no more boats and settlements in Aus" such that will give him their vote, does he also believe that Papuans are similarly stupid and sufficiently maleable such that the Rudd plan will eventualy work?

Tell me Mirgic, whose the real Elitis, Nazi, racist, prejudiced nut who thinks the down-trodden can be played with in such politically manner?

Prompete,

I noticed that u actually think the article and the man and ideas to be noble!

How?

How is it acceptable to displace poor native Pauan's so that Australia can build a little piece of Aus (like some gated community) for our refugee guests who will be living an Australian standard of living whilst the Papuan's can barely feed themselves? How is this not going to create future animostiy, jealously and eventual tension?

Note - this same animosity and jealously sometimes voiced by so-called Anglo "bogans" regarding the extra assitance that aboriginals and many ethnics recieve even though their economic and mental health pressures are identical, is no different to this Papuan concer, yet for decades it has been dismissed and even openly mocked via tv shows, comedies etc.

Your type morally disgust me and infuriate me to near madness!

imajulianutter,

I agree that our culture/society should get back to its "egalitarian roots", but it is in a completely different direction to what you are thinking.

For starters, since we have a "multicultural policy" who are you to (like some Western elitist) imply that the Western/Enlightenment "Egalitarian" values are somehow superior? What would you argue to a Muslim who claimed that women must only be housewives, or to a Strick Catholic or Buddhist who would rather disown their own daughter than allow them to marry outside of their "ethnic ways"?

You see, those egalitarian values are only worth something if people stick up for them, and this means ALL people on earth eventually overcoming their tiny little ethnic/racial/historical identities and realizing that we are ALL humans and we are ALL EQUAL. But whilst our multiclutral policy (and the left) make it impossible for the element in western nations (white, North-European descended peoples) who developed and live by these egalitarian values such that the entire world wishes to live in our nations, to ever make public debate against some "questionable values/beliefs" held by some cultures that are living in our nation on mass (e.g. Muslims and homophobia, female apartheid etc.)?

Think before you engage again, and tell all your nit-wit leftists mates the same, and tell them that merely because a white is poor and without a BA that their opinion, feelings, and very existence and worth do not automatically become worhtless.

Mirko Bargaric's claim that the present boat people mess is a catastrophe for the Greens and the refugee lobby is correct. Ordinary people see that the Marilyn Sheppards, Susieonline and Poirot clones have nothing but contempt for their own society (that they choose to live in) and that they will do anything to destroy it.

People like Rudd thought that sucking up to the educated elite lobby would win them government because of the see sawing 50-50 Labor/Liberal voting patterns. But now Labor has realised that trying to get over the line by instituting unpopular policies that only appeal to a small but significant minority is not going to work if you anger the majority of your traditional electorate that could always be relied upon to vote for you.

The boat people issue is one which absolutely incenses the working and disadvantaged class workers who once voted Labor. They know that the failed policy of multiculturalism is one that affects them personally. They see their suburbs changing from safe places to ones where gun violence and drug trafficking is rampant. They see the latge numbers of immigrants and "asylum seekers" who are permanently on the dole and they know that they are the ones footing the bill.

There is a clear dividing line between the educated elites and the working/disadvantaged classes whom the elites presume to be the leaders of. The elites look down their noses at the social inferiors while the workers sneer right back at them. Anything which increases that hostility is good for Australia. The sooner that the elites realise that their advocacy of every cause which harms their own people is making them utterly despised, the better.

Mirko, thank you for a very good exposition of the problem.

I'd like to agree with your conclusions as well, but I have some nagging concerns that aren't addressed.

The first is the obvious problem with the hazardous nature of the trips undertaken by people seeking asylum. Whether they are relatively well off or otherwise, they are people and they are dying to get here. We can't accept that as reasonable.

Second, we have limited capacity to sustain a larger population and while we certainly could do so, we do nobody any favours if we destroy our own capacity in the process.

Third, I see nothing especially morally indecent about self-selection of the most capable, although I can see some traps. If I had my family in a refugee camp I would be doing everything possible to get them out. However, I would feel bad about leaving others behind. In some people this might lead to a self-justifying elitism. Others might become zealots in arguing special causes, leading to unbalanced discussion of human rights issues.

We have already seen both of these things in those who escaped the Holocaust and their descendants.

Fourth, we have to be wary of creating unintended consequences. At the risk of being branded anti-Semitic, the state of Israel, for all its wonderful accomplishments, has also created an enormous amount of suffering and disruption. At every point in its progress it has been the product of the best of intentions, but nonetheless bad outcomes have followed. Many of the asylum seekers we see are because of the disruptive effects of the Israeli state and the elitist zionists who control US foreign policy, and all of the people who control those organisations would be sincere in saying they want only the best.

I think our first priority has to be to buy some time to properly address the problem. We must help those in need, but to do that we need to be somewhat Olympian in our vision. We can't allow ourselves to act in haste and stubbornly persist when things are obviously not getting better.

Everyone knows that Australians are racists because "Australians are racists" is possibly the most talked about topic in Australia which is pretty ironic. In fact, one of the biggest insults in our culture is to call someone a racist. In addition, the accusation of racism is used most cleverly to impose guilt on anyone suggesting an exclusionist policy.

We did this because our grandparents and great grandparents read Enid Blyton and saw no offence in the words "fuzzy-wuzzy", "gollywog" etc. While the more hateful epithets were avoided as uncouth or rude the patronizing terms that described those of other races as cute or pleasant and yet inferior were seen as merely describing reality.

We have come a long way in the last fifty years and while intolerance of race, nationality, ideology, religion and culture remains with us as an ongoing struggle it is a struggle we are actually fighting.

Unfortunately, this isn't true in the rest of the world. And, it is particularly untrue in those places where most of the emigration is occurring. The majority of them are victims of racial, cultural, class or religious intolerance or they tried unsuccessfully to impose their thinking upon the majority earning enmity for their efforts.

I just want us to be realistic. Across Europe disaster looms as Western societies governed by principles of tolerance have become a soft touch for foreign ideologies seeking dominance. We must be compassionate and tolerant but tolerance must also be a requirement for anyone wishing to become an Australian.

Come of the grass Moiteeki, if you want people to pay attention you'll have to stop spinning a line of bull droppings.

To start with no one on Oz is making these illegal boat people do anything. Apart from perhaps people like you & the lovely Marilyn, Ozzies don't want to have anything to do with them. We promise to totally ignore them, if they will just stay out of our lives.

If they chose to insert themselves in our lives they can consider themselves damn lucky we don't brush them out of our way like any other annoying nuisance.

With this new policy, which I find objectionable on behalf of the people of PNG, no one is forcing these gatecrashers to do anything. Out of our extreme generosity I'm sure we would pay to fly them home, if they would rather go home, than to PNG.

All we are saying with this policy, as with the previous successful policy is that we will choose our neighbors, & they are not chosen. They may choose their own neighbors, just not in Oz.

Now I don't know why it is so hard for some to understand that don't want these people here. We are already having too much trouble with the lying conniving lot that came before them from their home countries, & have no interest in having any more of this imported rubbish behavior.

Question:

Will the PNG plan survive a court challenge?

If not will Rudd or Abbott or whoever is PM when the courts reject this be able to get a "send them to PNG" bill through parliament?

Any idea what the legal basis for such a challenge might be, Steven?

Australia already has a foreign aid and a refugee commitment which appears to have been honoured for the most part. Doubling our intake of refugees would have little impact on the global figure but the question arises, at what cost? Are the 23 million Australians living here able to absorb more and if so who can make a realistic assessment of what that capacity is either economically or socially.

Imagining myself in the soul destroying position of being displaced from the place and lifestyle of my birth I would hope that my dreams of a new life were not to end with the drowning of myself and family because I chose the course of desperation. In that position I would prefer that such an option did not exist.

This option must be eliminated for the sake of those asylum seekers tempted to take the risk and also to stop the cynical and cruel exploitation of these desperate people by the profiteering perpetrators of illegal people smuggling.

The first priority for Australia as the destination country is to stop the loss of life through people smuggling. Then the issue of humanitarian aid to asylum seekers and indeed global poverty must be addressed.

Perhaps we could start by persuading the arms manufacturers of the world to stop their war games and divert their resources towards saving humanity and the planet. Think what the cost of destroying 500 thousand Iraq'is, a trillion dollars, might have done had it been spent on actually helping them. But of course as one high level American diplomat stated "were not here to help these people". Whoops! democratisation.

Come to think of it may be the diplomats job is to stir the pot, sell the arms and collect the profit, then sit back and watch while the countries concerned tear themselves to pieces and create the refugee problem which Australia and other recipient countries have to deal with. But that couldn't possibly be right "could it"?
Den 71

Anti,

A little info here.

http://theconversation.com/rudds-png-plan-unlikely-to-comply-with-international-law-16250

Hi Poirot

The PNG plan may, or may not, comply with so-called "International Law."

The Australian courts, however, have to consider Australian law and there it's a toss-up.

However if Parliament were to pass a "send them to PNG" bill the courts would have to enforce it regardless of international law or treaty obligations. If they didn't they would unleash a constitutional conflict that would dwarf the dismissal.

Since the Malaysia decision the government amended the immigration act to give the minister greater discretion. It depends on how the courts would interpret that.

stevenlmeyer,

I believe that essentially, as with everything ultimately, the rsponsibility for anything such as overcrowing if refugees bluff us and turn up anyway, or if PNG votes or has a referendum to stop the whole thing in future, or if PNG natives become angry and bitter because Australia is instead of helping them, a neighbour who fought in World wars with our side and more, proving this "gated community" for middle-class migrants from Middle East and Asia who want to live in a more stable prosperous political and economic environment.

Yet I think that like poorer Australians whi sometime voice frustrations with unfair preferential treatment given to Aboriginals and to some migrants and refugees when they are as poor and as needy but miss out, many naitve PNGs will react in this way and both develop anger at Aus for prefential treament of these strangers who are clearly not poor people from overseas, poor as PNG, and eventually violence towatds the centres may force Aus to pull the whole thing.

So yes, Rudd knows this cannot and will not ultimately work and anyone with sense knows that responsibility always falls to the West. So I believe this is a Left ploy to have what they see as a "Tampa moment" meaning they think that they will trick all those stupid bogans who merely vote for whoever hits the wog more.

Whether or not for whatever reason Rudd and the left believe they can trick over right votes, how is that either considered real and why would it be funny to think you can trick people for some gain?

Moral bankruptcy? Yes, extremely, and the PNG action is assuming they can also trick the stupid PNG idiot into accepting this deal. But Rudd and his supporters are the fools. Anyone who lives in a western nation, whether poor rich edcuated or not, would surely realize who must ultimately take responsibility if anything goes wrong and PNG wants out

So, I think that both sides of Politics are class bigots who beleive the poorer classes are tricked easily.

If this is so the case, how did one these so-called stupid wog-hate voting idiots end up developing the thrid biggest PARTY in parliament and recieved 1 million primary votes in late 90s, simpyl after giving a speech? Remember Pauline Hanson?

Just because she couldn't properly articulate her position does not mean that if the media had enaged her and supporters on the issues honestly and fairly a clearer picture of the intention of such persons would be learned by the leftist.

For instance, just because some Palestinians blow up Jews and have an extreme racist hatred towards Jews and wish to kill them, the average leftist does not simply dismiss them as an idiot.

Why in non-white cases does a leftist avoid assumtpions and looks deeper, often even going way overboard and almost suporting their "Nazi-like" culture?

Thanks Poirot, but I thought he overegged the pudding. For example, whether PNG has high rates of sexual asault is irrelevant, as is the social security available in Australia, since these people were not in Australia before they got on a boat.

It seems to me that the basic problem was summed up by a young lad I heard interviewed on ABC in Indonesia yesterday, who said that this would not deter him from getting on a boat because he had nothing to lose. His family are mostly dead and his father did everything he could to get him to Indonesia so he could have a chance. This was a boy of 15 or 16.

That father and that boy are very, very resourceful people, yet they have been focussed on getting away from their own place and leaving their community. The best and the brightest! What hope is there for that part of the world if we do not strive to assist them to stay and fix the place?

I've banged on a lot about the pull factors that reduce the incentive to stay in a marriage that is less than ideal and it seems to me this is a similar situation. In the future these people and their children will carry anger and resentment and they will grow to hate the place they left, when their heart belongs there. the cycle of dysfunction will be perpetuated.

Anti,

More food for thought:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-24/harris-rimmer-the-top-10-mistakes-in-rudds-png-solution/4838586

Just add that less than 1% of UNHCR refugees in camps are resettled annually.

People wonder why desperate people take to boats during a refugee crisis like the one at present.

Poirot, people undertake desperate acts, to lead a better lifestyle. Just look at the Mexicans and what they do, to go and live in America. That is not about persecution, but about money. It is the same with people streaming into Europe from Africa etc.

Hi Yabby,

Good to see you back on the asylum scammers subject. And even better to see you giving Poirot a lesson in fisticuffs.

Cheers

Moiteeki,
Your judgemental and abusive posts merely underline my comments.

Btw I am liberally educated, loathe the conservatives as much as I despise the socialists.
How you link a hatred of the suppressed Palestinians to this debate says much about your attitudes.

You need to read more man, especially the literature of the past thay has led to the development of the greatest civilisation, ie Western liberal democracy, the world has ever seen.

And btw dump the old testament. It is very rigid and limiting.

Oh and Moiteeki you show a singular lack of understanding of our Australian egalitarian traditions. It in fact arose from a rejection of those European elitist traditions for which I hold some distain. But you seem to hate not just them but in your blinding hatred you seem to hate all those other European traditions especially those which in fact have been to the worlds great benefit.
As I said Moiteeki you need to read more.

Hey Yabby how true.

Unfortunately people fail to realise that 1 in 6 people in the US rely on Food Stamps to survive, that's over 50 million people.

Globally, middle classes are disappearing at a greater and greater rate.

We live in a ponzi fractional reserve banking system, over time all of the money and the lifestyle everyone aspires to, ends up in the top 5 or 1% of the population.

Our existing and future pension, welfare systems are slowly but surely becoming unaffordable, anyone with a modicum of basic maths knowledge can work this out.

The last thing this country needs is more economic refugees. Unfortunately most of the boat people coming to Oz are economic refugees and their continued growth in number ilks badly for our own economic sustainability (if thats not already an oxymoron!)

Geoff

Hey Geoff,

I came to Australia in the 1970's without a visa, with a wife and little money. I had no trade or professional qualifications. I left a country which at the time was struggling economically... as were both my wife and I. We came here to take advantage of the openess of Australia and to make our fortune.

After 40 years, nearly all as a naturalised Australian, two children and one grandchild, financial independence and after finally abandoning the last vestiges of my original heritsge I think if myself as a former economic refugee.

The hardest act I've accomplished is to cheer, with my children, the Wallabies when we play the All Blacks.

imajulianutter I commend you good Sir, well done.

More of your ilk please...

Unfortunately the economic refugees we now get, in the main, want to get on the welfare gravy train, don't assimilate and do little for the future prosperity and social cohesion this country needs.

Regards

Geoff

Geoff: how many of these "economic refugees" do you know?

Asylum seekers are not granted asylum in Australia without hard proof that they are in danger if they return home. Those are the rules and refugee advocates will give you cases where the rules were harshly applied to the extent of sending people back to danger.

Asserting that asylum seekers are economic migrants when historically 90% have been granted asylum is a lie. Bob Carr knows this; perhaps you choose to believe him out of ignorance. If this were true explain this to me: why is Australia not awash with "asylum seekers" from the biggest sources of poor people like India and Bangladesh?

Asserting that they prefer to live on welfare is also a lie. While there are some who fail to integrate, the majority do and contribute economically. The big cost to the economy is imprisoning them.

These are facts you can easily discover for yourself. That politicians lie is a fact you don't need to discover. It's been known for a long time.

PhilipM,

<<Asylum seekers are not granted asylum in Australia without hard proof that they are in danger if they return home>>

What *HARD EVIDENCE* do they present PhilipM?

Geoff,

Yes, it's rather ironic isn't:

"Unfortunately people fail to realise that 1 in 6 people in the US rely on Food Stamps to survive, that's over 50 million people."

The US has spent many trillions invading and occupying Iraq and Afghanistan - (money that may have helped its own economy and perhaps have stemmed the need for people to rely on "food stamps")

...not only that, those actions have caused the destabilisation that's led to much of the refugee diaspora from the region.

A relatively small proportion of those people are now landing on our doorstep.

Hi Geoff,

Just a quick note to update and correct Poriot's poor attempt, above.

What has lead to the <<"refugee" diaspora>> is that it is widely known that OZ is an old softy, it's easy to con your way in --all you need to do is tell a good sob story.

And with regard to: <<A relatively small proportion of those people are now landing on our doorstep>>

The really funny, AND SCAREY, thing is that if a relatively large proportion of those people --or even ALL of those people --decided to land on our shore we would NOT be able to stop them under current arrangements. Further, people like Poriot would call us inhumane for even trying to do so. And no doubt under present arrangements over 90% would be "found to be genuine", anyway.

SPQR,

Yeah, we're pretty hard done by.

Do you want to know what a real refugee problem looks like?

http://twitpic.com/d4hlcf

@Poriot,

<<Do you want to know what a real refugee problem looks like>>

Well, it's pretty obvious YOU don't know what a <<real refugee>. looks like

Because anyone with even an elementary understanding of the Refugee Convention (and, in case you don't know, that is the pretext the boaties are using to land on our shores) will know that it does NOT define a refugee as someone fleeing a war zone -- hmmmm, so that is the second thing you've learned today, ay?

PS: That photo is probably what Perth will look like in a decade or two if we cannot control immigration!

Is that a Syrian refugee camp, Poirot?

OK, let's analyse this. The Arabs are a race of people who are a problem to the world. They are hell bent on maintaining their medieval religion who's values are completely inappropriate to anyone living in a modern democratic state. It is a fascist authoritarian religion which has always been at war with any sort of secular government. So strong is this religion that that the only way that any Arab state can move forward into the modern world even a little bit is to set up dictatorships which are stronger than the mullahs.

With the entire Middle East (excepting Israel) now almost entirely dictatorships at war with the Mullahs, with he various factions of Islam at war with each other, with some of the dictators absolute kooks who hate the west and promote terrorism towards us, and with and with Islam unable to create prosperous and peaceful societies, the result is war, and more war.

And your solution is to bring them all out here.

Yeah, and create more war zones in Australia. Just in case you have not heard, the NSW Police call the Bankstown, Auburn, Punchbowl area of Sydney, 'The Gaza Strip."

As for the Tamils, if they would never integrate into Sri Lankan society, and if they maintained their ethnic uniqueness, then settled into ethnic enclaves and then demanded "self determination," what's to stop them doing exactly the same thing in Australia?