Here we go again.
More leftist propaganda.
He is entitled to his opinion, however, at the end of the day Australia is a democracy. We had an election and most people disagreed with this author.

Does 60%+ people are against "Boat People" tell you something Jack? It tells you that these people are not being fair. "Being fair" an Australian thing. Most Australians like things to be "fair."

The objection to these people is also one of "Religion." Most Australians don't particularly like the "religion" most these people bring with them & for good reason.

Maybe one of the caveats for a refugee coming to Australia should be that they are not of a particular disruptive Religion. All others welcome provided that they follow the "fair" procedure.

I think 60% sounds about right. Those boats were tearing Australia apart. If 60% say no more, then as a democracy our government is more-or-less obliged to listen. And act.
And I further think the land mine analogy simply sucks.
But I do agree with the authors suggestion that we need to encourage a more robust screening of Middle Eastern arrivals when they land in Malaysia, Singapore and Indonesia. Something along the lines of Why are you here? and Where are you going? and Where is the ticket to your next destination?
None of those countries can claim to be fully good neighbours if they knowingly allow entry to those simply transiting their country on their way to an unscheduled boat crossing to Australia.
They have to know what this issue is doing to the political and social fabric here. Listening posts aside, do we treat them with such disdain? Do we put such pressure on their political and social fabric?

When are we going to stop labelling these people "asylum seekers"? They are not. They are seeking to settle in Australia by sneaking through they back door. This is an option that is expensive and these people are wealthy enough to afford the fare.

We know the young man murdered on Manus was an architecture student seeking further studies here. Hardly a poor asylum seeker. The abc last week gave us further insights into these people and it wasn't a pretty sight. Denied entry through a skilled migrant intake, they knowingly sought illegal entry. When turned back they showed their true colours. "F--K Australia" and "remember 911". I don't think this is the calibre of person we need to be importing.

Maybe the author need to be reminded that we have an orderly program to resettle true refugees.

Welcome to Little Australia.

The land of self-righteousness and blind introversion. Let's cut ourselves off from the rest of the world, protect our borders from invasion by refugees from other countries, smug in our (mistaken) belief that we are forever able to distance ourselves from what is happening in other places.

The prevailing view seems to be that "they brought it upon themselves. Primarily, it would seem, through the unforgivable crime of not being Australian. If only they were like us, then the world would be such a better place.

This view is all of a piece with the protectionists' idea that free trade is a bad thing, growing our population is a disaster, and all other religions are thinly-disguised evil.

Forget "a fair go". That might actually involve being compassionate. And compassion, quite clearly, is just for wimps and sheilas.

Keep those xenophobic posts a-coming, you guys. They say more about your morality and ethical make-up than you could possibly realize.

Pericles: smug in our (mistaken) belief that we are forever able to distance ourselves from what is happening in other places.

What is happening in other places is a good reason for cutting them off & not wanting them to extend their hated of each other in Australia, as is happening now. (Sunnie/Sheia devide)

Pericles: The prevailing view seems to be that "they brought it upon themselves."

That's is exactly why they are deserting their own country.

Pericles: Forget "a fair go". That might actually involve being compassionate.

Compassionate? This is "Business." There is little room for compassion in "Business." Especially if those to whom you are being compassionate to will try to kill you some time in the future.

Pericles: They say more about your morality and ethical make-up than you could possibly realize.

No it doesn't. It says that we have though this issue through & come up with a different outcome to you. Australians, living in a Democracy, are allowed to have a different opinion to you without being insulted.

Would you complain if I said that you had gone over to the Dark Side, that you support bringing terrorists into the country. I would say so. Even though it may seem like you would support those things. That's your particular opinion & you're entitled to your opinion as we are with ours.

The land mine analogy is silly. It seems a majority of Australians understand that under Labor/Greens the nation's sovereignty was severely compromised. Mr Maxwell would do well to reflect on the consequences over both the long term and short term of a massive influx of persons who are not refugees but simply people who want a better life and are essentially economic immigrants. History shows that such migrations have usually led to major political disruptions in the host nations and much pain for the population. Add in that the migrations occurring at present are driven by the inability of Islamic nations to get their houses in order, the anti-democratic essence of Islam, and the fact that new immigrants seem determined to bring all their baggage, cultural and religious, with them, it is not hard to understand the apprehension shared by most Australians.

Pericles bemoans self-righteousness --- then proceeds to deposit the biggest heap of self-righteous twaddle we've seen since the big dung scene in Jurassic Park http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOtTWSpCa_c

It ain't about accepting refugees, Oz accepts a good number of refugees each year without fail. It is about whether those would self-select should get preference.

Clearly Pericles thinks those who bribe, bully and barge their ways to our shores should be rewarded.

To use the landmine analogy, Abbott has stopped people getting hurt by the land mines, and there is no further need for land mine treatment.

Secondly, What a stupid analogy.

Well done, bogan xenophobes decrying Jack's common sense human caring, compassion, and respect for worse-off fellow beings.
Your'e all part of a mob, the 60 percent who responded obediently to John Howard's dog whistle when he decreed "we will decide..."!
There is also the matter mentioned by Jack of "the greater social good".
Good for whom?
So how do you react in your little white picket-fenced paradises if a person whom you consider to be of a lesser "class' than yourself moves in next door?
Tow them back to where they just came from ?

Certainly the religion style or many "refugee" men is disruptive and hence likely to course concern here in Australia - keeps security services busy and growing though...

Sri Lankan Tamils?

Concerning Hindu Tamils from Sri Lanka there is little reason they need to travel all the way to Australia - unless as economic refugees...This is because there are many millions of Hindu Tamils in nearby India who welcome Sri Lankan Tamils and of course don't discriminate against them.

Ponder,

It is ironic that for someone who places a lot of worth on compassion and respect, you seem to have little regard for your fellow posters. A good quarter of you post consisted of putdowns:
<<bogan xenophobes>>
<<all part of a mob...who responded obediently to John Howard's dog whistle>>
<<your little white picket-fenced paradises>>

Could it be that your real motives are a good deal less noble than you'd have us believe ---go away and have a ponder on it.

"It is ironic that for someone who places a lot of worth on compassion and respect, you seem to have little regard for your fellow posters."

Waah! You don't deserve any compassion and respect, because you and other posters here have voluntarily and readily demonstrated themselves to be unthinking drones who have completely drunk the Kool Aid and are unable to produce a scintilla of original thought, relying instead on the cynical and calculating rhetoric of your plutocratic masters.

Please tell me - anyone, actually tell me - where you get your information on asylum seekers arriving to Australia, outside of the Murdoch media, conservative talkback radio or the LNP, all of whom have a massive financial and political stake in spreading lies and misinformation. Literally one source outside of these.

I am constantly astounded by the confidence with which people pronounce these people "economic migrants"/"country shoppers" etc, without a scrap of evidence, and flying in the face of the opinions of neutral academic, legal and medical experts who devote their professional lives to working on this exact issue.

And yet I'm not really surprised, because this line plays neatly into your small, preconceived, xenophobic mindset: the borders are "violated" daily by armies of visa overstayers, but because they are unseen - by arriving by plane along with the vast majority of visitors to this country, but more importantly, by being white Anglo-Saxons - there is no outcry whatsoever. The reference to the Yellow Peril by a previous commenter is spot on.

Thanks for underlining my point, Jayb. Your responses so far have been pitch-perfect.

>>(Pericles: They say more about your morality and ethical make-up than you could possibly realize.)
No it doesn't. It says that we have though this issue through & come up with a different outcome to you. Australians, living in a Democracy, are allowed to have a different opinion to you without being insulted.<<

It seems you have concluded that by describing your posts as being a reflection of your personality, I am somehow being "insulting".

Very revealing.

And...

>>Compassionate? This is "Business." There is little room for compassion in "Business."<<

Actually, to very many people, this is not "business" at all, but instead a connection with humanity. The fact that you think of it as a "business", requires you to put a monetary value on human life.

So do tell, what do you reckon that might be?

Really Speegster you need to open your eyes and have a good look around. Even the ABC (that notoriously right wing media giant) showed footage last week that proved these people not to be what you are claiming.

As for neutral academics, legal and medical people, well I am not sure about the academics and the medicos, but there are certainly some legals who will loose trade, and thus money, by stopping this illegal entry. And yes, it is illegal from many points of law, both in our country and in Indonesia.

The main difference between overstayers arriving by air, as opposed to indo fishing boats, is that they arrived with a visa and a passport. The dept. of immigration also have an active programme to track these people and deport them as necessary. I do not know what you base your assumption of flight arrivals being 'White anglo-saxon' on. The figures available from readily available government websites would suggest otherwise.

Maybe instead of wasting time labelling us "unthinking drones" you should use that time to do some research and become aware of what is actually happening rather than reitterating illinformed leftwing propaganda.

Pericles, if I pay money to a person, or persons, for the purpose of conveying me from one point to another that is "business". You draw a very long bow by thinking it is a "connection with humanity".

And as for the value of human life, what was the value of the 1200, or so, souls drowned at sea under our "open borders" regime?

Pericles: Keep those xenophobic posts a-coming, you guys. They say more about your morality and ethical make-up than you could possibly realize.

Pericles: I am somehow being "insulting".

You accuse me & anyone that disagrees with your view as being; xenophobic, morally and ethically corrupt. That's not insulting? Eh!

Pericles: Actually, to very many people, this is not "business" at all, but instead a connection with humanity.

40% doesn't mean they support your view on Boat people. By many people you mean about 20%, The other 20% couldn't give a rats one way or the other.

The Australian Economy is a Business. Australian Business. Not only does it involve people but it involves how much is spent on Infrastructure, Schools, Hospitals, Industry & much more. $8 Billion on wasted AID & $3 Billion on Boat People per year. That's wasted money. That's big Business. Compassion is cheap. I take it you have sponsored a Muslim family,have them living with you & are providing all their essentials, being the compassionate person that you are. Or, are you all hot air like most of the "compassionate" blowhards. Oh, that's someone else's job.

No word form Jack Maxwell?. I don't think we will,.put him in the dumpster with the Costello's etc.

@Sparkyq you do realise the irony of decrying someone for not doing proper research, and then posting no evidence whatsoever to back up your claims, right?

"Even the ABC (that notoriously right wing media giant) showed footage last week that proved these people not to be what you are claiming".

Have you heard of the phenomenon of "linking"? Please link to this footage and provide an analysis of how "these people" are not what I'm claiming.

"I do not know what you base your assumption of flight arrivals being 'White anglo-saxon' on. The figures available from readily available government websites would suggest otherwise."

Actually I was referring specifically to people who overstay their visa. And from the actual official statistics provided by the Department of Immigration, as opposed to your, you know, NON-statistics, the largest single proportion (18%) of Temporary Entrants in Australia come from Anglo-Saxon countries (UK, Ireland, USA, Canada, South Africa, NZ), and 30% come from ethnically predominantly Caucasian countries. So the biggest potential pool of overstayers come from these subpopulations.

Here's the link: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/statistical-info/temp-entrants/totaltemp.htm

See it's not that hard to link! Now where are yours?

"you should use that time to do some research and become aware of what is actually happening rather than reitterating illinformed leftwing propaganda"

Actually last year I managed a project commissioned by the Department of Immigration interviewing 1,000 former asylum seekers, and met and interviewed in greater detail 10 myself, as well as academic and legal experts on seeking asylum. I can't tell you the results because they're confidential, but I base my opinion on this rigorous, social scientific research, so perhaps you can intuit the overall gist.

Why, how many asylum seekers/refugee experts have you met and interviewed?

With one or two honourable exceptions, whenever this issue is raised on the pages of OLO it simply provides a forum for a repeat of the ill-informed opinions issued on previous occasions.

There are some basic facts that need to be borne in mind, although that is probably a wasted plea in this context.

First, we are signatories to both the UN Convention on Refugees and the later Protocol. This means we have a duty to abide by the obligations under those instruments. The fact is we don"t.

Secondly, when the claims are processed (and the failure to do so is an ongoing disgrace) more than 80% are found to be genuine refugees. The balance can be repatriated within our legal obligations.

Thirdly, Australia accepts a derisory percentage of the world's refugees, and shows precious little concern about the millions of others whose lives have been made intolerable.

Fourthly, our policies, such as illegally invading Afghanistan and Iraq and blindly following US policies elsewhere in the world have played no small part in creating the refugee crisis in the first place. We seem totally unable to accept the consequences of our foreign policies.

I thought that the Labour Party had brought us to a new low in their refugee policies, but I was mistaken. Morrison and Abbott seem determined to throw out every vestige of respect for the law, all the while hiding behind an unsavoury cloak of secrecy.

It is time for a fundamental rethink of our policies before our international reputation sinks even lower.

Sorry speegster here is the link to the 7.30 report -
http://iview.abc.net.au/programs/7-30/NC1405H047S00

30 + 18 = 48. I would not call 48% a "vast majority" or any sort of majority.

And yes, I have spoken with many people involved in this area. Legal people, medical people, guards, tradesmen and some refugees who have been resettled in my community. Their stories have been interesting to say the least and most do not support the notion of the impoverished, downtrodden asylum seeker.

There is a big difference between real refugees and boats loaded with 95% mostly young men to middle age that we get, they are economic welfare for life invaders.

Jo'N: more than 80% are found to be genuine refugees.

There is a lot of Politics involved in these decisions. I, for one, don't believe the 80% figure. I do believe that some are given the benefit of the doubt on the slimmest of margins to boost the numbers so as to appease the Lefty, Green cry babies.

Jo'N: Australia accepts a derisory percentage of the world's refugees, and shows precious little concern about the millions of others whose lives have been made intolerable.

Invalid argument.

Jo'N: Fourthly, our policies, such as illegally invading Afghanistan and Iraq and blindly following US policies elsewhere in the world have played no small part in creating the refugee crisis in the first place.

Load of crap. Refugees were coming here long before the Good guys went in to kick the Taliban out. I suppose you were up there protesting the terrible things the Taliban were doing to the local people. No. Then you must agree with what they were doing to the local people. I then surmise that you could be that type of person.

I see you're protesting about the Russians in Crimea too. Mind you if the Yanks had invaded the Lefty, Greenie groups would be protesting everywhere. Strangely silent. Why aren't these groups protesting against the terrible things being done by the Radical Islamic Groups creating havoc around the World now. They are causing the mass movement of Refugees in the first place.

No you Lefty, Greenie types only protest against the West because you can get away with it. You couldn't if you protested against the Baddies in their Country. It would be hard to make a decision without a head.

What a terrible analogy!

Forget about the boat-people or however else you wish to name them: what about ordinary Australians?

The author suggests that in the (hypothetical) event of the prevalence of land-mines, where the established health system cannot cope with the load of injuries, those who provide alternate treatments are to be considered criminals. Yes, he condemns the incarceration of patients, but that only emphasises his contempt for those who treat them.

In other words, the author would not allow Australians to choose from whom and how they receive medical/health care.

The government of Australia is hostage to the professional guilds, headed by the AMA Mafia, legislating in their favour a carbon-copy of those guilds' internal constitutions, so to avoid any possibility of competition. It is not the elected politicians who rule this country, but those shadowy guilds who drip their venom in our politicians' cups.

Behind the "stop the boats" policy is the philosophy that the state must be in control and assume responsibility for everyone living in this continent: now doesn't it perfectly fit the author's values - or does he, by opposing it, prefer the rights of refugees over Australians?

Had the state not made it its business in the first place whether those "boat-people" (or whatever you like to call them) live or die, drown or starve, had it not wished to enforce this expensive intervention with our tax-money, had those people been allowed to fend for themselves - both at sea and in Australia (should they survive the journey), then very little would remain of the 60% support for this policy.

Hi Jayb

Yes there appears to be selective outrage on the part of the Left regarding "refugees", the environment and Russia's new invasion land Crimea.

The Left appear to oddly respect Putin's Press Releases and the actions of the Russian Army in Crimea.

Could it be that Lefties in the shape of Greenpeace became respectful of Putin at the end of last year because he locked up 20 odd Greenpeace Arctic oil rig protesters for many weeks in nasty cold prisons. In Western countries they would have been out of jail, slap on the wrist, after 2 days - but not under Russian "justice".

For Greenpeace the Left and the poor old Russian people fear of Putin appears to breed odd respect for his Highness and Mother Russia.

Not all of us who support the current roll-back of asylum seekers are the monsters some would have us.
Not all of us think that free trade is a bad thing, although I do question whether of not we want to buy into the current Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. This US-led initiative seems to have the two-fold goal of isolating China (how can China NOT be part of any trans-pacific trade deal?), and passing primary power into the hands of multi-national corporations.
Not all of us think growing our population is a disaster. I certainly don't, although I do think it imperative that the Australian Government keeps control of any growth. Don't we have a policy of accepting 20,000 humanitarian refugees per year? Making sure we fill that quota might be a good place to start.
And I do not think that all other religions (other than what?) are thinly-disguised evil.
I also think it imperative for "us" as well as for "them" that anyone arriving on an unscheduled boat is treated humanly, and I question if indefinite detention whether in Darwin or PNG can be considered humane.
And lastly, I think we as a nation need to stop being camp-followers to Anglo-Zionist wars of unipolar design. The world has enough refugees without us adding to their number by ill-considered foreign policies.

Have I touched a nerve, Jayb?

>>You accuse me & anyone that disagrees with your view as being; xenophobic, morally and ethically corrupt. That's not insulting? Eh!<<

The xenophobia is not in question I hope, it exudes from every sentence you write.

But as for accusing you of being "morally and ethically corrupt", I would like to point out that I did no such thing. If you would care to re-read the sequence, it goes like this:

I stated that "[your posts] say more about your morality and ethical make-up than you could possibly realize."

You unilaterally - and quite possibly for all I know, accurately - assumed that this reflected some level of ethical and moral corruption that makes its presence felt through your posts.

But please recognize that this is your inference, not mine.

>>40% doesn't mean they support your view on Boat people. By many people you mean about 20%, The other 20% couldn't give a rats one way or the other<<

Ok, I'll accept your word that there are not very many Australians with any compassion for refugees. I'm not sure this is anything to boast about, though.

And this is an intriguing angle, Sparkyq.

>>Pericles, if I pay money to a person, or persons, for the purpose of conveying me from one point to another that is "business". You draw a very long bow by thinking it is a "connection with humanity".<<

I was actually referring to our, as in Australia's, connection with humanity, in response to Jayb's:

>>Compassionate? This is "Business." There is little room for compassion in "Business." Especially if those to whom you are being compassionate to will try to kill you some time in the future.<<

You seem to be referring to the criminal classes who take pecuniary advantage of refugees before they actually arrive here. Although it is always possible that the refugees will be so appreciative of their business model, that they will try to kill them.

Nah, it does seem that you might be confusing the boat operators with our Government.

Or was this perhaps intentional?

Great article. And surprising to see it on OLO. The analogy was actually not a bad attempt to try and get some to see this issue from a different perspective. It clearly went right over the head of most. ("But Mummmm, it's not the same thing!") It is tricky for many to be able to apply principles to different situations, if this kind of thinking does not appear in the early teenage years, it probably never will.

On the rare occasion that I read posts in response to any article that suggests Australia just could be horribly wrong with the way it treats asylum seekers, I get deeply depressed. That is, until I realize how many find higher level thinking just too difficult.

Politicians, know this, hence, the really simple slogans easily memorized and repeated.

Pericles, I always admire your calm responses to the indignant, self-righteous xenophobes

Dear Yvonne,

I only comment about the analogy, not about refugee policy:

<<The analogy was actually not a bad attempt to try and get some to see this issue from a different perspective.>>

Is it the perspective which says that government has a right to dictate which people we may see to look after our health and imprison all others who dare treat us without belonging to the AMA Mafia (Australian Medical Association)?

<<if this kind of thinking does not appear in the early teenage years, it probably never will.>>

Lucky for me I was not born in Australia, so I wasn't subject to this kind of brainwashing in my early teenage years.

@ speegster

Well old chap if we drank the Kool Aid, you must have downed the automobile coolant, because all you doing is speaking in clichés -- whilst all the while patting yourself on the back thinking you've come up with something which no here has ever heard before.

There's this old furphy: <<tell me ...where you get your information [that the boaties are largely economic migrants]>>

But before you even get an answer you declare <<Waah!>> it could only have been from the dastardly Rupert Murdoch and his press!
And still not content you launch a wild attach on --that favourite hate group of all illegal immigration advocates -- <<Waah! what about>> all those white skinned visa over stayers!

If anyone is a clone its poster like you! All of the above have been raised about 10,000 times (by earlier verisons on you) -- and thoroughly and debunked.

However, I think we have a handle on why you are squawking so loudly (apart from the coolant that is) --see here: <<Actually last year I managed a project commissioned by the Department of Immigration>>
Could it be that with the LNP new border controls being effective you feel you ticket on the Immigration Dept gravy train might be up for review?
Waah!Waah!Waah!
Let's hope so!

It is quite simple really.
100% of these boat people are better economic seekers.
They have been in at least two safe countries and because of that are
no longer able to claim refugee status.
After arriving in one or more countries they then decided that Australia
might be better than the country they were then in.
If they don't like Australia they could claim refugee status in Japan or perhaps the US !
How many countries can they shop in ?
This is clearly an economic decision.
That is it, there is no way around that !

@Pericles

<<You seem to be referring to the criminal classes who take pecuniary advantage of refugees before they actually arrive here>>

Just a couple of points:
1) They are NOT "refugees" until their claims are tested (a better term would be asylum scammers).

2)It is not clear who is taking advantage of whom $10,000 for transportation to Oz and a life time of freebies (for you and your relos)is hardly a bad deal.

@Sparkyq you've fallen into the trap I'm afraid:

"30 + 18 = 48. I would not call 48% a "vast majority" or any sort of majority."

What I was trying to convey was that the largest proportion are from a Caucasian background, conveniently. But what you've done is demonstrate your "White vs. non-white" mentality, as if the other group makes up a homogenous morass of "invading darkies". What I don't get with racists like you is why you just can't admit who you are? Why not come out and be comfortable with your xenophobia? The self-loathing must be torture and I (sort of...not really) feel sorry for you.

@SPQR thanks for the chuckle.

"If anyone is a clone its poster like you! All of the above have been raised about 10,000 times (by earlier verisons on you) -- and thoroughly and debunked."

What's missing from your retort (apart from any kind of grasp on the English language) is an actual reply to my "clichés". I think it's missing because parts of your brain are missing, but also because you can't provide a valid response; in fact, I have never received one. Would you like another go?

"Could it be that with the LNP new border controls being effective you feel you ticket on the Immigration Dept gravy train might be up for review?"

Not at all my grammatically challenged friend: it was a one-off project and was always going to be. And also, compared to the $200 million a month we're spending on Sovereign Borders and offshore detention (as opposed to the $20 million we'd be spending on community processing), the project was a very small drop in the ocean (no pun intended).

Jack. I hope you will consider seriously the objections to your well-meant but misguided plea. Don't dismiss all as racist; there is solid argument you should take on board. I can only regret that your philosophy degree at Melbourne Uni no longer includes basic logic , otherwise you would have recognised the fallacy of "petitio principii" in "asylum seeker".
James O'Neill. On this one you are wrong. Think political economy, not muddled moralism.

So Jack - get it right! About 60% of us, probably more IMO, object to people invading our borders illegally. Not genuine certified refugees who have waited years in some cases to be resettled under our humanitarian programs .... Thank-you and good-night!

What a load of crapola.

I find it "difficult to believe" that Jack Maxwell thinks that these people are really refugees at all, when they are usually either illegal immigrants, or people "fleeing" the consequences of the cultures that they support and wish to continue living with, while residing in Australia and being subsidised by the Australian taxpayer.

Then he groans on about "human Rights". Hey Jack, Australians have a "human right" to decide the ethnic makeup of their own country, and to decide who crosses our borders.

Get it through your overly thick cranium, that it is a cultural universal that people wish to live with people that they are culturally and racially akin to. People that they feel socially related to, feel safe with, and who share their values, attitudes and behaviours. It is bad enough that we have stupid governments in Australia that have decided to promote an immigratio0n policy destined to swamp the very west European culture that made Australia a wonderful place in the first place. But when people from cultures with opposing values to ours decide to invite themselves into our country whether we like it or not, then what is left of the Australian people demand that their government act to stop it.

Did you hear about the Muslim man in London who rang the "genital mutilation hotline" because he thought it was a helpful infidel government service which would tell him where he could get his two daughters circumcised? THAT is the level of cultural disconnect that exists between us and them.

Shouldn't those who cause the refugee problem be thinking about refugee policy and human rights instead of us ?
Isn't it about time the do-gooders focussed on them instead of us ?

Foxy,
how about one of your links to address this ?

LEGO,
Agreed, Those arriving, or attempting to, by boat are shonks who get here by deceit and bribery. They attempt to gate crash and lie to our immigration officials and make it difficult to deport them, by destroying their documentation.

Congratulations to Scott Morrison for his success thus far and we wish for the continued success.

I think the support for stopping the boats would be much higher than 60%. Somewhere about 80-90%. There will always be a few dissenters.

To quote the words of G Richardson, 'Whatever it takes' to deter these illegals from coming.

@speegster

Perhaps we should rename you FRAUDster --it'd be a much better fit.

You told us: << last year I managed a project commissioned by the Department of Immigration ...I base my opinion on this rigorous (sic)...research>>
Subtext: *that "research" showed me the truth and the light --Hallelujah!*.
However, from your very first --and sorry-- post on OLO, you showed yourself to be a bred-in-the-bone illegal immigration advocate --even at that stage you were well versed in all the clichés--see here:http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14974#258195
So there was no Road to Damascus experience (as your tried to imply),ay!
And Dept of Immigration ought to be rapped over the knuckles for employing such a biased overseer.

Then we have this little attempted con:
<< [my little junket incurred minor costs] ... compared to the $200 million a month we're spending on Sovereign Borders and offshore detention>>
I looked far and wide on your post history for any comment that bemoaned the cost of putting the HMAS taxi service, on 24/7 call (in the Julia-Kevin era) to pick-up any Tom, Dick and Ali who might dial 000 from just off the Java coast –- but found nary a whimper! (if you did protest the cost of the HMAS taxi pick-up service by all means point it out).
So suddenly (under Abbott) you’re a fiscal conservative -– what a joke!

Actualy, the amount spent on deterring these asylum scammers is likely to be a small drop in the ocean compared to the cost of providing a lifetime of freebies –or special opportunities – for them and all their relos if they were ever to be settled. (again something your ilk would never raise a whimper about)

And as for this: <<What's missing from your retort … is an actual reply to my "clichés>>
What’s missing from your tone is any desire to hear the answers –and any real desire to adjust your mindset if you heard them.

Come-on fess up you're still fretting about that Dept of Immigration gravy train ticket --now you'll have to get a real job, ay!

@SPQR You are pathologically incapable of arguing from anything except pure conjecture backed up by nothing but totally erroneous assumption.

Your assertions regarding asylum seekers and their potential strain on the fiscal coffers not only demonstrates your feckless inability to consider empirical evidence (which more often than not demonstrates that immigrants - whatever their circumstances of arrival - contribute a net benefit to the national budget), but also your total lack of empathy and compassion, as well as a dyed-in-the-wool racism.

"...from your very first --and sorry-- post on OLO, you showed yourself to be a bred-in-the-bone illegal immigration advocate --even at that stage you were well versed in all the clichés"

That comment, dummy, was made in May 2013, when the project had almost run its course and all of the results were in, results which vindicated the Immigration/RRT decisions quoted in my original comment.

"Actualy, the amount spent on deterring these asylum scammers is likely to be a small drop in the ocean compared to the cost of providing a lifetime of freebies –or special opportunities – for them and all their relos if they were ever to be settled. (again something your ilk would never raise a whimper about)."

Again no evidence, just bald-face and incorrect assumption. My "ilk would never raise a whimper about" it because it is essentialising racist tosh.

"What’s missing from your tone is any desire to hear the answers –and any real desire to adjust your mindset if you heard them."

So you can hear my "tone" through the copper wires eh? I note this diversionary tactic, because you STILL haven't answered my queries! Because you just don't have any worth the time of day.

Why can't you be happy with who you are? Why twist yourself in knots when you can just come out and admit you just don't like brown-skinned people?

*Sent on my lunch break from my computer in my office at my day job, the same one I had when I did that project. Do you know about working and companies and grown-up things?

speegster,

Before you accuse all and sundry of "pure conjecture backed up by nothing but totally erroneous assumption" I would suggest that you stop doing exactly the same.

The immigrants from the wave of illegal boats in the last few years that have achieved PR remain mostly unemployed and living off benefits. Given that an average person has to earn nearly $60k p.a. before making a net contribution to the state coffers your claim that they provide a net benefit is pure conjecture backed up by nothing but totally erroneous assumption.

Remember the howls of outrage from the left whingers when Howard's pacific solution was costing $500m p.a. and the complete silence when Rudd / Juliar's open borders was costing nearly $3bn p.a.

Similarly your claim that Operation Sovereign borders is costing $200m per month is blatantly disingenuous as the vast majority of the cost is processing the economic migrants that labor invited, and the cost of patrolling the oceans and turning back the boats is a small fraction.

@speegster

<< [SPQR] Your assertions ...[that asylum scammers are a net cost] ... only demonstrates your ...putdown, putdown, putdown >>
And your knee jerk rejection of my point only demonstrates your lack of research. I'll link you to another poster on OLO who HAS done her research --see here:
"The per capita economic benefit from mass migration is very small and mostly distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves...http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6302#185225
(you would benefit greatly from reading some of her posts)

<<That comment… was made in May 2013, when the project had almost run its course and all of the results were in, results which vindicated the Immigration/RRT decisions quoted in my original comment.>>
So are you hon-est-ly trying to sell us on the proposition that prior to that “rigorous" research (excuse me whilst I stifle a fit of laughter) you were a fence sitter on this issue –not bloody likely!

<<So you can hear my "tone" through the copper wires eh?>>
Yes-- loud and clear.


Like most advocates you clearly have a fixation with skin color:
<< it because it is essentialising racist tosh.>>
<<but also your total lack of empathy and compassion, as well as a dyed-in-the-wool racism>>
<< admit you just don't like brown-skinned people?>>
Two small points to console you:
1) The Iranians who up till recently made-for a large percentage our illegal boaties are hardly "brown-skinned"!, and
2) I would hazard a guess that my skin tone is a lot browner than yours.

<<*Sent on my lunch break from my computer in my office at my day job, the same one I had when I did that project.>>
Does your employer /shareholders know you are using company resources to further you own private policitical ends/fantasies?
It’s a bit of an insight into your morals & business ethics, ay!

@Shadow Minister. Here's what you say I said:

"Similarly your claim that Operation Sovereign borders is costing $200m per month is blatantly disingenuous"

Here's what I ACTUALLY said:

"...compared to the $200 million a month we're spending on Sovereign Borders AND OFFSHORE DETENTION"

How can I debate people who can't even read, let alone argue a point properly?

Immigration detention and military border protection are inhumane and exceptionally costly. But don't ask me (about the latter), ask the Department of Immigration and Border Protection forward estimates:

http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/budget/budget13/paes/2013-14-paes-05-sec1-overview-resources.pdf

More than $1.9 billion for 2014-15, for detention ALONE. That's $160 million a month without any Defence spending factored in whatsoever. Community processing is much, MUCH cheaper and more humane (not that dehumanising bigots like you care about the latter). And if we allowed asylum seekers to work it would be cheaper still. But this isn't about money, it's about keeping out 'The Muslim Peril'!

@SPQR We're getting closer! You've provided a link to a report someone else posted. But did you read the report? (I know, I know, it's got some big words in it). The original poster totally warped the findings in their comments. Here's a pertinent extract:

"In Australia, most immigrants are net contributors to fiscal balances over their lifetimes, with skilled immigrants
making the greatest contribution (PC 2011f). This is primarily because immigrants tend to be young adults and enter the labour force soon after arrival, compared to native-born Australians who are net recipients of government services early in their lives."

At the very worst, their impact is neutral, with the benefit that we as a rich nation of immigrants ourselves could help people (a tiny minority of whom have fled persecution and torture) make a better life for themselves and their families in our huge country at no cost to us.

Instead, we have decided to disgracefully treat them like animals at a MASSIVE cost to us, because of unthinking racist drones like yourselves. Shame.

An odd perception of what is severe, 200 not dead that would have been. That is 200 bodies that are not bloated with decomposition gasses so they float, with the eyes eaten out by small fish and crustaceans, maybe a leg consumed by a friendly Great White and a face locked in a rictus of horror.

All such "Caring tm" types are Sophists of the lowest order making "Ambulance Chasing" lawyers seem honourable. At least such Lawyers don't kill those they pretend to care about.

Yuyutsu, you did not understand my point regarding the analogy. And you clearly do not understand that there are different kinds of thinking a growing brain learns to do, from neonate to young adult a brain develops. There is quite a body of work on the different levels of moral thinking humans are capable of doing as the brain matures, though not all people develop as much as a few rare people have. Nelson Mandela is an example of a human who had great capacity.

I'm not clear what you are implying with your comment regarding education in Australia. Do you think education in Australia brainwashes pupils? Learning to think and questioning what others, especially those in authority, are saying is contrary to the concept of brainwashing I hope you realize.

Uhmmm Individual, who do you think has caused the refugee problem?

And what do you mean with do-gooders? Why has the terms do-gooders become a derogatory epithet? Especially when bandied about by conservative types who love the whole judea-christian heritage that we in Australia are supposedly to love and fight for?

It is very, very weird. Isn't the Christian ethos about kindness and caring as espoused by Christ?

Many of you have so much more in common with the Taliban. Full of hate and wanting to destroy anybody who does not dance to your tune, delighting in the suffering of anybody who is 'other'.

Speegster: it's about keeping out 'The Muslim Peril'!

& you don't think the problems they have caused themselves in their homeland won't follow them here. You are sadly in need of a reality check.

Speegster: because of unthinking racist drones like yourselves. Shame.

I beg to differ. We have watch what has unfolded in the ME due to their archaic religious beliefs & anyone who disagrees with those beliefs. We have decided that it's not a religion that we should support in Australia in any great numbers because of the fanaticism that accompanies it. It's not a racist call at all it a call against the religion.

Yvonne: Why has the terms do-gooders become a derogatory epithet?

It's an Oxy-moron. Do-gooders are people that want to wrap everything in cotton-wool. The trouble The nut cases jump on the band wagon & they all try to out do one-another, so instead of doing good, it all turns to shite. What they try to protect gets turned on its head & everyone loses out.

Despite the ABC, Hanson-Young, boat chasing immigration lawyers, idealists and civil libertarians the current policy towards the so called burnt and badly treated boat people is working well. Congratulations to the Abbott government, they have earned my vote. The Indonesians have observed a dramatic decrease in the arrival of people in Indonesia on their way to Australia. THIS IS ALL GOOD. The ABC should resist its 5th column role in the boat people issue; they are quickly losing respect and viewers.

Speegster,

I admit I misread, but you also completely missed the point. The remaining detainees are a labor legacy, as Howard left Krudd only 4 detainees, so the $bns being spent is yet another Labor / greens legacy.

As for your laughable claim of the illegals being net contributors, as 85% or so of these migrants are still unemployed several years after achieving residence, please pull the other leg, but it is complete BS.

Dear Yvonne,

Certainly, I agree that questioning others and especially those in authority is extremely important: what I find is that there is not enough of it in Australia, that Australians tend to accept rules and authority like sheep, far more than in other countries. Obviously there are exceptions.

One of the things that (most) Australians take for granted is the authority of medical doctors. The state currently gives doctors unprecedented powers, including (but not limited) in matters of life and death, but only those accredited and registered with the AMA and complying with its specific methods, disciplines and philosophy are granted those privileges while all others are prohibited by law from helping people with their health issues. So certain people are allowed to interfere with your body even without your consent while others who have your consent are considered criminals if they do.

The author, by saying "but please don't punish the poor patients", implies that it is right and proper to punish the people whom those patients chose to be treated by.

---

Now a word to everyone here vehemently either supporting or opposing asylum-seekers: why do you need to quarrel?

Let those who love those boat-travellers, adopt them, sponsor them, bring them into their homes and feed them.

And let those who hate those boat-travellers, lock them up, incarcerate them in detention camps, perhaps even apply torture and harvest their organs if that's what makes them tick...

There are more than plenty of boat-travelling asylum-seekers for everyone to get their share - so no need to fight over them!

But please, both sides of this debate, please do it with your own money rather than with my tax-money.

@speegster

<< skilled immigrants making the greatest contribution …>>
Err! Speegster old chap, it may have missed your notice but most asylum scammers are NOT skilled –if they were skilled migrants they would have availed of the skilled migrant program. The only skills that asylum scammers have in abundance is the ability to remember the lines the smugglers & advocates fed them –they are excellent at rote learning lines –but there ain’t a lot of need for that skill.

That is why so many of them are long term unemployed –and many of those that do find employment have to take advantage of special opportunities (PC code for) work positions or education positions which have been reserved for them and denied to other Australians--a cost you refuse to recognize.

You no doubt have a big warm heart -- but your compassion is wasted on the asylum scammers most of them are hardened schemers.

This is a typical timeline for most Middle Easterners trying to boat from Indonesia (in the Rudd –Gillard era):
1) They plan their sting well in advance in their home countries.
2) They jet into Malaysia or Indonesia (with ID papers) looking for all intents and purpose just like another load of Middle Eastern tourists.
3) They rest and recreate for weeks whilst they negotiate passage (often bribing Indo. officialdom).
4) Then they change change down into their civvies –destroy their papers, but not their mobile phones— and hop a slow boat to Oz (in the sure and certain knowledge that once they land they will be aided and abetted by a gaggle of speegster’s who will ignore all of their indiscretions , coach them on what to say and do, and do their utmost to subvert controls.

Wake-up speegster you’re being had, take-up a more constructive crusade.

@Shadow Minister, I'm afraid it's you who completely missed the point. We could be processing them all onshore in the community much more cheaply and humanely, and Labor are just as much to blame with their only slightly less humane policies. Just because we send them back (in ever increasingly expensive lifeboats), doesn't mean the desperate circumstances they are fleeing will change.

This is where people like you and me differ: I say we give them a fair go to make their case, and if they're genuine refugees we act like responsible and compassionate global citizens and give them a fresh start in our "boundless plains to share"; you prefer to be unAustralian and not give them a fair go, and bury your head in nimbyism because it doesn't matter because they're darkie foreigners and therefore animals and not human.

@SPQR your "typical timeline" is pure redneck fantasy. The difference is I've had actual ongoing exposure to the process, through asylum seekers, refugee lawyers, doctors, and Department of Immigration employees and officials, and know for a fact that you're spouting unadulterated nonsense. You've literally pulled it out of...thin air.

I will not "take up a more constructive crusade", and in fact your willful deception only strengthens my active resolve; what I will do is stop wasting valuable time pointlessly arguing with airhead bigots who concoct elaborate fairytales to further their racist agenda.

speegster, you miss the point, they are not under any threat from
whence they came. They are not refugees under the UN definition as
they passed through other safe countries !
It is about time argument on that point ceased.
As far as detention is concerned the government should be able to
ascertain from their language and accent, issue them with one way
travel documents and put them on a plane, handcuffed to a seat if needs be.
If their countries object, just tell them we object also and
"We have had enough and we are not going to take it anymore ?"

It is beyond time that they stopped pussyfooting around with them.

speegster,

In early 2008 there were virtually no detainees and about 100 immigrants coming illegally by sea. Then KRudd decided that We could be processing them all onshore much more cheaply and humanely, and the boats increased exponentially, with arrivals peaking at about 4000 per month, more than 1200 people were killed, and the cost of handling the illegal immigrants increased vastly or nearly 6x.

With over 40m refugees world wide, and over 400m living in dangerous circumstances the number of potential refugees is limitless, and those who had the cash to pay what most refugees earned in a lifetime were very seldom the most needy.

This is where people like you and me differ, seeing the bodies of women and children killed by the Labor / greens stupidity, and knowing that up to 2000 more died and were never recovered is appalling. Your dog whistling by calling everyone racists that opposes the fruity ideas that killed thousands is feeble, when the same immigration laws are applied to non darkies that enter illegally albeit in smaller numbers.

Yoohoo speegster,

Before you go [back to (mis)using your company's resources to further your own ends] would you like to address this:

<<SPQR your "typical timeline" is pure redneck fantasy... you're spouting unadulterated nonsense.>>

So if my version is inaccurate, how about you tell us - your version - of how thousands of Iranians just happened to find themselves in a position in Indonesia where they had to boat to Oz.

*BE SPECIFIC DONT WAFFLE ON ABOUT THE STATE OF THE WORLD*
Tell us exactly how *the Iranians* got there--and don't to forgot to tell us how they all come loose their IDs but keep their mobile phones

It is now a nowhere argument.

The boats have stopped.

Actually "Nutter" they haven't stopped. The boats have been intercepted and turned back, which is quite a different proposition, not to mention in breach of our international obligations. They can't resist lying even about that, pretending that our navy doesn't know where it is at any given moment on the high seas. If that were true it would be a real cause for worry.

As the SMH pointed out last weekend, the government's denial of information has reached even more absurd levels. Unfortunately for them even Peter O'Neill blurted out some unfortunate truths, which led to some hasty improvisation from Abbott, Morrison and Bishop. None of which bears more than a passing acquaintanceship with the truth.

While you and your ilk have been frothing at the mouth with typical fact free opinions and a profound ignorance of international law, the number of persons admitted to Australia as "migrants" has increased dramatically. The so-called "boat people" are a very small number by comparison. Amazing really how you and your ilk are suckered by the dog whistle politics of Morrison and his anti-democratic crew and ignore the bigger picture.

Dear Imajulianutter,

<<The boats have stopped.>>

Or perhaps they just got smarter and manage to arrive without being detected - you better look under your bed, for if they haven't got smarter yet, they certainly will!

Never mind, it's good that they've stopped for now because Abbott is a man of honour who indeed kept his election promise. Note however that he didn't say "We'll stop the submarines", "We'll stop the gliders", "We'll stop refugees hiding on ships" or even "We'll stop the boats forever". Promise made - promise done, now elections have been won and Abbott is free again to exercise his brain and his heart.

My remaining concern is just, when will they stop taking my money and borrowing even more money which eventually I'll have to return, then handing it to detention-centre guards. Had Labor been in power, the answer would be: "aren't you ashamed to destroy this whole detention industry? Don't the guards, like everyone else, deserve to keep their jobs?".

Get a load of this from James O'Neill:

<<you and your ilk have been frothing at the mouth...>>

<<you and your ilk are suckered by the dog whistle politics of Morrison...>>

Don't you just sense that James is overflowing with compassion and loving-kindness.

Speegster was going on about clones.The best example of clones on this thread have been speegsdter, Ponder and James.They are dead ringers right down to insults they throw at anyone who disagrees with them.

But I love this bit especially <<Morrison and his anti-democratic crew>>. Forget the last election result--it ain't democratic unless it agrees with what James wants!

You are vilifying me and I'm offended by being lumped in as an 'ilk'.

Shall I sue you under section 18c James?

James give me proof of your claims. Are the centres on Nauru or Manis Island expanding?

James you are a hard hearted codswalloper who supports drowning men women and children at sea.

JoN and Yuyutsu,

Abbott's promise was to stop the illegal boat arrivals. For more than 3 months there has not been a single boat arrival. While some boats are trying, they are failing, and the orange lifeboats arriving back in Indonesia are a potent sign of the failure of the human traffickers. The boat attempts are now also stopping with almost no orange lifeboats needing to be deployed.

On average under Labor about 20 people were dying at sea a month. The coalition's record so far is ZERO.

Dear SM,

That's wonderful news, the boats have been stopped, so Abbott fulfilled his promise.

I would never ask a man of honour to break their promise, so when I gave my preference to Abbott, for totally different reasons (stopping the NBN), I was aware that he would stop the boats, by hook or by crook.

However, Abbott never promised that he would stop the boats for this long or that long, only that he would stop them, so now he is no longer bound by that promise. Now he is allowed to use his brain again, his heart too.

Yuyutsu, "However, Abbott never promised that he would stop the boats for this long or that long, only that he would stop them, so now he is no longer bound by that promise. Now he is allowed to use his brain again, his heart too."

Isn't it great that Abbott is doing exactly that. He is stopping the boarder jumping of the very worst people Australia could have enter the place.

He is thinking of the long term, not just a sop to the conscience of fools, who care not at all for the future of Oz.

If he doesn't stop this garbage entering Oz, it is just a matter of time before we become the next Lebanon or Syria.

How anyone, with even half a brain, can not look at the world & understand that a sizable Muslim population is going to end in civil war, or repression if that population becomes very large, I really can't understand. Interesting that so many are academics isn't it?

Yuyutsu,

I don't believe that any of the voters think that Abbott promised to pause the boats.

Speegster is right, SPQR, "refugees" are a boon to our economy. The Vietnamese enclave of Cabramatta is the heroin capitol of Australia, responsible for the importation and sale of literally billions of dollars of heroin. This heroin money has has been a real boon to the local Cabramatta economy. There is probably a "trickle down" effect working there from all of that drug money that would benefit the economy of all of Australia.

The Lebanese "refugees" have also been a great boon to our economy through the creation of ever more jails, and job opportunities for prison officers, police, and council workers responsible for picking up all of the spent bullet casings lying in the streets of Lebanese and Arab areas. So too, are expanded job opportunities for welfare workers who will have to combat the benefits of multicultural immigration such as child brides, female circumcision "honour killings" plus the odd bomb.

We are even providing interesting job opportunities for Police by the introduction of ethnic specific crime squads, who curiously seem to apply themselves to policing certain crime and welfare prone ethnic and religious groups. I would rather not say which ones, because as Bolt found out, Freedom of Speech no longer exists in multicultural Australia.

We can also thank our refugee friends for such benefits as the Terrorism Act and the fact that the police can now search your home and car without probable cause. But we will have to live with that if we want to get the great economic benefits of multiculturalism

Dear Hasbeen,

<<How anyone, with even half a brain, can not look at the world & understand that a sizable Muslim population is going to end in civil war, or repression if that population becomes very large>>

Of course, but the only place in Australia where there is even a remote risk of that for the foreseeable future is Sydney.

To begin with, many asylum-seekers are not Muslims (or are non-practising Muslims) and many flee from that same Muslim repression that you mentioned.

Then, the number of arrivals who could make the journey to Australia without drowning on the way wouldn't be big enough to present any real threat, that is if Australia hadn't intercepted their boats and locked them up close to the start of their journey (both activities at the tax-payer's expense). The ocean itself provides adequate deterrence for free.

It would indeed be reasonable to deny Muslim asylum-seekers (or even other Muslim immigrants) entry into Sydney or even NSW, but why into the rest of the continent? Tasmania already stated that it would welcome those people with open arms, so why not allow them in for example on visas that only lets them remain in Tasmania (with no commonwealth welfare of course)?

Abbott's experiment worked! It was proven, so we are assured, that should the number of refugees ever become a problem, it is possible to stop them in just 6 months. Now that we know what to do if the need arises, we can afford to moth-ball the orange life-boats and relax.

Dear SM,

<<I don't believe that any of the voters think that Abbott promised to pause the boats.>>

Probably true for MOST Liberal voters - neat trick, Tony!

At least he kept his promise to the letter, so he won't go down in history together with Juliar ("there will be no carbon tax ... only carbon-dioxide").

It doesn't surprise me that the {now extinct) Labor government of Tasmania piously proclaimed that Tasmania would take in all the refugees that the mainland did not want.

My recent visit to Tasmania amazed me in that there was barekly an ethnic to be seen anywhere. I felt I was in a time warp where I was back in Australia during the pre Whitlam era when the White Australia Policy still protected our people and our culture. It just goes to show that the old refrain that "those who ae most enamoured of multiculturalism, are the ones who live the furtherest away from it's consequences."

Tasmania is a sleepy little place. What it needs is a population of Arabs inhabiting a particular suburb and filling the night with the sounds of gunshots, like we have here in Sydney. This would stimulate the economy through job creation in the prisons, courts and police industries. I have always wondered whether the fact that so many lawyers are enamoured of multiculturalism is because they see boat people as their new clientele.

101 days and no boats arriving on Australia.

That's what the majority voted for.

Why would anyone voluntarily relocate to Tasmania? The greens and labor are taking it back to the stone age.

They were, but not any more, after the last election.

By their electrol choice Tasmanians have shown they are quiet appreciative.

Lol that must be a real blow.

Bj do you like 'craw'.

Oops Jb on two counts.

I misread your post and my mind slipped on your name.

imajulianutter: I misread your post and my mind slipped on your name.

Sorite. Wait 'till ya get old. ;-)

According to those who know me best, my adult off spring, I am already old.

Jack Maxwell

You claim that a utilitarian morality is wrong and leads to stoping boats which you claim violates the essential inviolability that each individual essentially possesses.

Essentially I agree but I must turn your attention to the REAL problem of perception in this matter.

That is the narrow focus and blindness that our nation's constant focus on refugees and boats only near our shores - this shows bias; whilst our cultural awareness of more extreme and serious matters elsewhere such as the other 99% refugee issues goes unnoticed.

Surely this exposes at least some severe moral deficiency.

You claim to be against ‘utilitarian’ attitudes - no reason given just implied feelings.

YET what of the bizarre utilitarian approach the Left has towards the "refugee phenomenon" which Left has managed to coerce our whole nation into having by forcing our attentions exclusively onto the tiny handful that travel by boat to our shores via use of means of "moral cops", "shame tactics", "branding racist" those who disagree etc.

Nothing is mentioned of the 99% refugees waiting in squalid camps on borders of third-world nations all over world.

Surely to not help ALL equally violates this inviolability of all people.

The LEFT are extremely confused and mixed up since while they scorn as bad people any who engage in a utilitarian stance to human crisis; the Left themselves take a strong utilitarian stance in the way they approach and deal with the global refugee phenomenon by ONLY focusing on less than 1% of refugees who come by boat to our shores.

Their blindness to the other 99% is at the very real and cruel expense of those millions of persecuted people who suffer in silence are out of our western sight range.

Have you EVER considered that the "bigot" who says 'no' to more boats is in fact of the mind I have just now described.

Dear Matthew,

You say that you agree that utilitarian morality is wrong: it certainly is. Utilitarian morality is the claim that "all means justify the ends". Rather, the means are at least as important as the ends.

The foundation of morality is non-violence. While it is nice and virtuous to bring and shelter refugees from all over the world, the first and foremost precept of morality is to not harm those who arrive (or try to arrive) on their own.

If refugees are persecuted and wait in squalid camps, then it is very sad, but is the doing of others and if they drown in the ocean, then it is also very sad, but is their own doing. If however you hunt and capture them on the high seas, then forcibly turn them back or incarcerate them, then this violence you are guilty of yourself.

Yuyutsu,

Part I -

You claim “utilitarian morality is wrong” and claim "the means are at least as important as the ends”.

. . . which leads you to conclude “While it is nice and virtuous to bring and shelter refugees from all over the world, the first and foremost precept of morality is to not harm those who arrive (or try to arrive) on their own”

You claim whilst it is “very sad” that “refugees are persecuted and wait in squalid camps”, but Australia’s policy of “forcibly turn[ing]” boats “back or incarcerat[ing] them” is actions of violence which “ you are guilty of yourself”.

However, look closely at your premises Yuyutsu - YOU ARE a “utilitarian” in Moral judgements and decisions.

Take your claim that regardless of all else when Australia does engage in actions to detain, return and/or imprison people fleeing to our shores in boats that we have conducted ourselves immorally and this makes it wrong in some universal sense.

You seem to imply a kind of moral vigour which Immanuel Kant once wrote of to say that ‘certain actions are essentially immoral’ and so must never be enacted, such as for instance ‘a situation in which 4 men are abandoned in a boat at sea have no food and are lost decide that if they wish to survive they must choose 1 of the 4 do die so the other 3 have enough provisions’ a Kantian would NEVER allow such a decision but would argue for either ALL to live or ALL to die trying since NO ANY single person is more important than ANY other person.

Whereas a Utilitarian would choose to kill 1 for good of 3.

Further and to end, unless you are disagreeing that majority of the world’s refugees exist in “squalid camps” on borders of third-world nations barely being tended to, and that only 1-2% refugees are what we ever deal with and talk about as “Boat people”, then HOW do you convince yourself that this is NOT a “Utilitarian” act of moral deciding of one over another?

Part II -

HOW could we make a choice which is to deal with the “boat people” or not over and above dealing with or focusing on any other refugee masses or concerns in the world, then surely this is not a PURE, universalist moralistic, ALL GOOD absolutely (as in a Kantian sense where ALL individuals are equal) way of behaving by our government and the supporters of the action?

Surely this is instead a UTILITARIAN moral action since it allows for the decision to include factors where some groups in need are less important than others.

That is to say, the action of choosing to help the few refugees in boats near our shores at expense of most refugees globally and also at expense of trying to fix source of problem, is a very extreme type of utilitarian act. - when 1-2% is entirely focused upon at the expense and deletion from mind of other 98%.

In fact ONLY IF we attempted to approach the refugee problem from a more wide, holistic angle would that behaviour amount to the kind of moral sort you seem to indicate is what you believe is enacted in the focus on the 2% at expense of 98% - i.e. the Utilitarian action, highly calculative.

Surely this exposes at least some severe moral deficiency.

Besides, to rely your entire argument upon the premise that we should NOT EVER do HARM, so as to force us to make the "moral choice" which is you think to choose the few over the most

- let me put this to u and to anyone:

Hypothetically if these were not poor refugees but actually wealthy people from the same nations the refugees are fleeing since these "wealthy" people are the criminals who persecute them but now thru some miracle they are forced to flee . . .

. . . Would we be right to help them over helping anyone else in trouble? If so surely the bit about "Harm" you raise as your gold piece U must now see its futility.

Dear Matthew,

In the case of "4 men in a boat" I would agree with Kant that no one should be murdered to save the others, but that doesn't necessarily make me a Kantian: if one of the four was dying naturally and without being pressured, completely voluntarily, asked the others to kill him because he had no hope to survive anyway, then it wouldn't be wrong to help him out of his misery, though I personally wouldn't do it.

<<then HOW do you convince yourself that this is NOT a “Utilitarian” act of moral deciding of one over another?>>

It is very simple: no act of preferring one over the other is involved. My heart may still cry for the 98%, but that doesn't allow me to actively harm the 2%. In fact, it would even make no difference if those arriving were "wealthy criminals" which I hated.

To clarify further, I am not "choosing to help the few refugees in boats near our shores", only to refrain from disturbing them - if for instance their boat takes water and they drown on their own, or if they starve to death after they arrive, then it would be perfectly legitimate for me not to intervene: if I did choose to intervene regardless in their favour, only then you may claim that I prefer the 2% over the 98%.

Approaching refugees from a wide holistic angle is virtuous and I salute those who do it. Yet while that goal is honourable, it doesn't justify violence in its implementation.

A "focus on the 2%" would indeed be "highly calculative", but I never suggested any such focus. My primary focus is on MYSELF/OURSELVES refraining from doing any violence - if ON TOP of that we can ALSO help others, so much the better.

Yutsie: In the case of "4 men in a boat" I would agree with Kant that no one should be murdered to save the others,

No-one would have to murder anyone. When the first person dies naturally then the others eat him & are saved. CDF.

There's Kant, Utilitarian & CDF. CDF is better.

Be away for 18 days, going overseas for a bit. I'll miss you guys.

Bon Voyage Jayb, some people must have lots of money, ay!

Have a safe journey, Jayb,

<<When the first person dies naturally then the others eat him & are saved>>

By that time the others would be dying too, too weak to rise, cut and eat.

<<Be away for 18 days, going overseas for a bit. I'll miss you guys.>>

Too bad nobody will be here to explain to us what "CDF" means.

CDF. Old Navel term. Dog being a term for an Ordinary Seaman. Hence, Common Dog Fu(#, You don't need to tell someone what to do because it's Basic Instinct. Ask any old Sea Dog. ;-)