Well said John. There are a couple of points I would add.

Many people forget that, for those in developing countries, getting permanant residence in Australia is like winning the Lottery. The incentive to migrate by hook or by crook is massive in financial terms, which is part of the reason why people take such risks to get here or to places like Western Europe.

There is also a multiplier effect in that many, who are given asylum, will subsequently seek to bring their wives and families to Australia, and (for some groups) future generations will seek to bring spouses from their home country.

Most Australians would be less concerned about unauthorised asylum seeker arrivals if their post-arrival outcomes were more satisfactory. Concerns relate to very high dependence on welfare and a belief that some groups are unlikely to integrate easily into the rest of society

Another young Tory staking his claim for a seat at the table. A greater collection of ill-informed nonsense it would be hard to find. Has this idiot the least notion of international law and the responsibilities that it entails? Clearly not. I am afraid that OLO is becoming less and less a forum for intelligent debate and more an echo chamber for the Liberal (there's a misnomer) right wing.

If Waleed Aly and his ilk find that Australia is such a uncivilized place, he remains completely free to return to his Egyptian homeland. The others can please themselves.

I've lived in tents and less. Our early settlers/pioneers lived in bark huts and tin sheds with dirt floors! Some even had running water! running in the stream a few hundred yards from the house.

These folk are entirely uninvited and if able to successfully usurp our Australian migration laws, effectively elbow much more deserving asylum seeker claimants out of the way! There are very limited places! And more displaced folk now, that after WW11! For mine, anyone able to front up with a year's salary to pay a trafficker for a visa free illegal transportation. Has he means to use normal legal means!

If you've got that sort of money and have made it, by air to a transition destination, you should hang onto your documentation!

You know, those papers that allowed you to fly in the first place to safer transit countries, and once there, apply for legitimate tourist visas.

It would be far cheaper! And safer! And having arrived here by air, immediately apply for sanctuary!

And given that less expensive alternative option, the people living on Nauru/Manus Island, do so by choice!

As much as living in a tent on Nauru is problematic, I'm sure it's no picnic for folks trying to flee the genocide in Syria! Or indeed that meted out to Christians living in muslim dominated areas of the Middle East?

We need a regional solution. Like the one that was, all too briefly on the table, which would see these folk go to Malaysia, where they would be free to work, attend school, live in reasonable rented accommodation, and put themselves and their proven bona fide identities on a list for resettlement, anywhere but here!

That sugar is well and truly off the tale, and without it, the people smuggler business model is thankfully, busted!
Rhrosty.

"Not so fast. As soon as Dutton’s order came into effect, the self-harming on Nauru stopped. Immediately."
What is the evidence for that? It seems unlikely considering we've recently heard reports of children self harming.

"Even a cynic shouldn’t doubt that most people in the Labor party had the best intentions at heart when they abandoned offshore processing."

Wrong. Most people in the Labor Party wish only to alter the makeup of Australia by importing odds and sods to do away with Anglo-Saxon ethics. Their intentions are of the worst kind.

"I am afraid that OLO is becoming less and less a forum for intelligent debate and more an echo chamber for the Liberal (there's a misnomer) right wing."

James O'Neill wants OLO wants OLO to be an "echo" chamber for the left wing, clearly not knowing that the Left is the cause of all our problems and is doomed to anhilation in the long run. The pendulum is swinging.

I am perhaps more cynical of our politicians than you are John, as I would suggest that while borders are a necessity, the Howard government in particular, largely ran a con on the Australian people. For one, the Howard government made a great show of stopping the boats but said nothing about the rapidly accelerating plane arrivals to over 200,000 net. At the same time, the Howard government gave use the baby bonus and played the ageing population ponzi-demographics card while Costello earned the title Profligate Pete from the IMF due to his wanton spending.

The Rudd government, made a great show of dismantling the existing solution while accelerating plane arrivals to over 300,000 net. Gillard and Abbott much the same boats rhetoric while saying nothing to stem the flow of plane arrivals to anything remotely sustainable.

It should be borne in mind that to my knowledge, our only progressive politician who gave Australia a brief period of independence did not want to see further population growth in Australia:
"I do not envisage any dramatic increase in our present population, and indeed I would not wish to see one. I expect vast improvements in our roads and railways, new childcare centres and health centres, better hospitals and schools and improved standards of public and private housing."

– Australian PM Gough Whitlam July 1974

As an aside, Whitlam set immigration to net 0 and unemployment dropped to below 5%. Fraser reinstated our grow and hope policies and this strategy was copied by subsequent governments (perhaps out of fear of what the growth-at-all-costs-lobby would do should we have a leader urging for rational debate on population).

The point that you have made John, which should have been the primary focus of commentators, is that for all the rhetoric, no actual solutions are being proposed. Endless detention on Nauru is not a solution, but neither is endeavouring to resettle never-ending numbers in Australia - else we would (and actually are due to plane arrivals) creating the same conditions people are trying to get away from.

Instead, what we need to do is focus well-targeted aid where it will do the most good as highlighted in this piece penned by William Bourke of the Sustainable Australia party:

"William Bourke, President of the Sustainable Australia agrees, saying “Whilst an increased intake should be considered, the current game of moral one-upmanship by politicians is unhelpful and regrettable. The government’s plans to increase the intake by 12,000 will cost a conservative $500 million, or around $40,000 per refugee.[2]

[26/01/16 Edit: Figure later confirmed to be $700 million, or around $60,000 per person.]

This is now “How many people would $40,000 per year help to live safely in UN camps? According to the UNHCR, a donation of $300 per annum ‘can buy an Emergency Assistance Package to give a family the essentials for survival and shelter’.[3] If we conservatively assume a family is four people, that’s $75 per person. For every one person Australia resettles, we therefore forego the opportunity to help over 500 people in what World Vision’s Tim Costello calls ‘the main game’. Given the scale of the Syrian crisis, $500 million would be better spent helping over 6 million people than 12,000.

”Rather than simplistic moral posturing over increased permanent resettlement numbers, we align with Reverend Costello’s overriding aim to help people live safely now, and ultimately sustainably in their homeland. To achieve this ultimate goal, we also need to address underlying drivers of resource scarcity and conflict in Syria, including rapid population growth.

http://www.votesustainable.org.au/refugee_posturing_by_politicians_morally_misguided_sustainables

For all the bleeding heart Lefties promoting open borders, here's the reality of what is happening in Europe:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yfuPgMTgEs

Add to that the unconscionable suppression of information on the invaders' atrocities in Cologne, Sweden, France and the UK.

European nations built up their wealth over centuries. These scum from the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan or wherever have just turned up and demanded 2000 Euros a week play money, a car, a house. They are simply stealing the wealth of Europe. With no resistance to speak of from gutless politicians such as Merkel. Au contraire, with the support of such politicians, bureaucrats and police, as the video above shows.

Aidan,

"What is the evidence for that?"

Here....http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/immigration/asylum-selfharm-ends-after-family-travel-ban/news-story/98df1c069cd66bd677d17639018b4661

"Late last year, Mr Dutton ­instructed the Immigration ­Department to bring only the person needing medical treatment to Australia, not the whole family, unless there were ­“extenuating circumstances”.

In the three months after the virtual ban on family members was introduced in September, there was a dramatic fall in self-inflicted injuries.

In January last year, there were 15 threats of self-harm by asylum-seekers on Nauru and 14 self-­inflicted injuries and in May there were seven threats and eight incidents of self-harm, representing 2.4 per cent of the asylum-seeker population.

But in October, the month after the new policy, there were only one threat and seven self-inflicted injuries.

By the following month, this had dropped to two threats and two incidents of self-harm.

In December, there was only one threat of self-harm and no self-inflicted injuries."

Now a curious person would wonder whether, given that the self-harm habit was clearly contrived, what else might be contrived? Perhaps 5 yr old being raped?

By the skin of our teeth and due to the good judgement of people like Howard and Abbott, we have largely avoided the horrors now engulfing Eurabia. But to protect ourselves from those horrors we need to be constantly vigilant against those who, for whatever purpose, seek to demonstrate their virtue at the expense of our future. Thankfully it seems, the good sense of the Australian people has prevailed whereas the willingness of the Europeans to let their political leaders do as they wished has bought them to this dire stage.

Okay, let's go through it all again, from A to Z - pick your preferred position:

A. The Australian government should allow people into the country who come here on leaky boats, after paying exorbitant sums to people-smugglers.

Okay. But then, why 'leaky boats' ?

B. All right. The Australian government should allow people into the country who come here on seaworthy boats, after paying exorbitant sums to people-smugglers.

Okay, But why should they have to pay exorbitant sums to people-smugglers ?

C. All right. The Australian government should allow people into the country who come here on seaworthy boats, after paying standard commercial fees.

Okay. But why should they have to come here only by boat ? Why not allow people to fly ?

D. All right. The Australian government should allow people into the country who come here on commercial flights, after paying standard commercial fees.

Okay. They should be able to jump the queue (ahead of sixty million other refugees, many who would have applied on the proper forms in the proper sway, and waited. And waited) on ordinary commercial flights from anywhere in the world. And why just bona fide refugees ?

E. All right. This should not be limited to refugees: anybody who wants should be able to fly here at any time.

Is that it ?

Where's YOUR cut-off ?

IS there a cut-off ?

Joe

Before John Bilger writes a joint article with Waleed Aly for the ever-gullible British audience, we should remember that :

* Australia does have a refugee intake -14,000, soon to rise to 21,000, if I'm not mistaken. The humanitarian Abbott government committed to taking another twelve thousand from Syria; that's up around 33,000, the equivalent of Britain taking in 100,000.

* Australia does have an immigration intake, of ?something like 180,000 annually?, the equivalent of Britain taking half a million.

* close to half a million foreign students are currently studying in Australia. You do the maths, it's Friday afternoon.

* there are close to that number of tourists, backpackers and 451 visa-holders.

* there are reputed to be quite a few illegal visa-overstayers in Australia.

Just getting in before the usual Bilge reaches New Matilda. Oops, too late.

Joe

The left have certainly dumbed the getup group etc down enough where we see clearly that the 'ánti racist are by far the most racist, the peace protestors the most violent, the feminist the most sexist , Islam is a relgion of peace. Certainly Christophobia destroys people's rationality. Waly is just smart enough to exploit the naive and brainwashed.

mhaze, if it were true that..
"As soon as Dutton’s order came into effect, the self-harming on Nauru stopped. Immediately"
...then we would have seen an immediate drop to zero, not nine in the next two months.

Which month did they cease confining the refugees on Nauru to the detention centre? I'd have expected that to have far more of an impact.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Loudmouth,

I hope we can agree that B is preferable to A.

If people are wiling to pay exorbitant sums, it makes sense for them to pay them to the Australian government instead of people smugglers! But before we go any further, we should acknowledge that there does need to be a selection process.

Firstly, keep the undesirables out: anyone who supports any terrorist organization anywhere in the world should be excluded. Anyone who does not support freedom of religion (including freedom to change religion and freedom to have no religion) should be excluded. Anyone who is unwilling to respect women no matter how they dress should be excluded.

(If someone deemed undesirable is severely persecuted, there may be a case for granting them temporary protection visas, but ONLY if it can be shown that they're not a threat to Australians).

But that still leaves too many people, so there should also be a self selection process. Getting somewhere difficult is one way of doing this, but a better way would be to favour those with the skills to succeed here. Refugees should learn English before coming to Australia, otherwise they should be settled in another country in our region. The 2 exceptions to that are if other countries in our region are also unsafe, and if they know AUSLAN (or even one of the Aboriginal languages, unlikely though that is).

My own opinion of Waleed Aly is that he is a Muslim who wants every Muslim who wants to come to an infidel country, to just come. They can eventually turn every western country into a Muslim country through birthrate differentials, thereby earning Waleed Aly a place in the seventh level of the Muslim heaven when he dies.

Proof of that assertion came when Tony Abbott stated outright the self evident truth that the reason the world was having so much trouble with Islam and Muslims, was because there was something intrinsically wrong with the scriptures of Islam. Even A left wing person should be smart enough to figure out that any religion which preaches extreme hostility to non members, demands the expansion of that religion through armed force, and rewards in the afterlife, those who fight to spread it's influence, is an extremely dangerous religion.

Waleed Aly is portrayed as the educated face of "moderate" Islam and here was the chance for the "moderates" to show the critics of Islam just how "moderate" they are by agreeing that the scriptures of Islam are the problem. Instead he dodged the issue and he launched a stinging attack on Abbott using the usual claptrap about "racism" and "Islamophobia".

Such an argument could only appeal to the moral puritans who have a compulsive need to think that they are better than anybody else, or those naïve appeasers who think that "all you need is love" to prevent human conflict. Unfortunately, his argument does appeal to there two groups. My opinion is that Aly is an Elmer Gantry figure who knows how to play on the emotions of those gullible people who need to think that they are the righteous chosen people who know how to Save The World.

I don't think that Waleed Aly is a moderate at all. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Interesting article, after the unfolding disaster in Europe I wonder how the advocates of 'open borders' can still promote their ideology and expect that they have the moral high ground. Also, anyone who wants to open the borders should set an example by accommodating refugees in their own home which is usually in some leafy outer suburb, not in the inner city areas where most refugees are housed.

Loumouth,

What's happened to New Matilda? It was once a reasonably balanced site, now it's been captured by the loony left.

Aidan,

The critical point in this story is that it is proof that the self-harm regime in Nauru was all about circumventing the law and getting families into Australia where the lawyers and rent-a-mob protesters could work to force the government to allow them to stay. We have been told over and over that the self-harm was caused by psychological damage due to the poor detainees being confined in inhumane conditions. But it now should be apparent to all who want to look at the facts that it had nought to do with psychological issues and everything to do with refugees and their advocates trying to defeat Australian law.

But you want to ignore all that and concentrate on a semantic piece of hair-splitting over the word 'immediate'. Pretty much what we'd expect.

mhaze,

Far from hair splitting, timing is crucial when considering whether the claim of cause and effect is actually true. And considering October 2015 was when Nauru granted the asylum seekers housed in the detention centre freedom of movement around the island, the "critical point" is unproven and IMO unlikely.

G'day Aidan,

Why stop at B ? My A to E options were not options for any government to consider, but options for supporters of open slather to consider, and rampage through the streets over. My point was: if you accept option A, why not B ? Then why not C, etc.? Can you draw a line, and if so, where ? If you don't, are you prepared to propose that ultimately there should be no restraints whatever on immigration to Australia, from anywhere ?

My point, perhaps a bit too subtle for children, one which may need repeating, was that once we indignantly and righteously demand option A, what's to stop us then wanting to move onto B ? Then C ? Then D ? Then E ?

As it happens my preferred option is

F. None of the above.

Many thousands of desperate people have applied to come to Australia as refugees, and are patiently waiting their turn. Queue-jumpers push them further down the queue. A brainless policy of taking all who get into leaky boats, for exorbitant sums, denies any opportunity for genuine refugees from leaving their hell-holes. Even SHY could understand that.

No, maybe not.

But I'm glad that you aren't an opportunity-denier, Aidan :)

Hi Mac,

I don't recall a time when New Matilda was a reasonably balanced site, perhaps I was just a very young child back then.

Cheers,

Joe

Looking up the internet we find Waleed Aly is an Australian.
What was an Australian yesterday is not what an Australian is today.
Waleed Aly is a follower of sunni or Wahabbism the same as Bin laden.
As such he can obtain free trips to the Middle East and just as Bin Laden entitled to a Saudi Passport.
So where is his loyalty.Australia or Saudi Arabia.
It seems that his support for Muslims is paramount in his agenda.
Just as so many British born second generation Muslims with a British passport support ISIL, so Waleed in his heart has to support the Wahabbism extremists around the world.
The sad situation is that Waleed is a split personality.
As much as he convinces himself of his Australian values.His heart is in the deserts of Arabia.

G'day Joe,
Even though you prefer option F to all the others, I hope you agree that option B is preferable to option A because option A is likely to result in many people drowning while trying to get here, while the other options will not.

Surely anyone who supports any of your other options would want them to be considered by any government?

I'm well aware of the point you're trying to make, but I think you may have missed the point I was making in response: you don't draw a permanent line, but that doesn't mean there should be no restrictions on immigration. I'd prefer to base the policy on the contribution people could make to our nation rather than whether they come by boat or plane.

One option I consider worthy of further investigation is to set up a Special Economic Zone somewhere in the NT, operating under Australian law but without the usual restrictions on immigration and wages. Where to locate it would depend on whether the local Aboriginal communities would support it, but I think the Cox Peninsula should be the first location to consider.

BTW those who come here themselves, even in leaky boats, are not the ones preventing us taking any more refugees from the "queue" - that's a political decision that they don't make. And I don't think it's desirable to make people queue for fifty years in order to get into Australia.

_________________________________________________________________________________

BROCK,

Sunniism and Wahabbism are not the same thing. The latter is a small subset of the former, and while I'm not an expert on Waleed's views, he doesn't appear to subscribe to it. Neither entitle anyone to free trips to the Middle East. Saudi citizens are entitled to Saudi passports, but Waleed's not a Saudi citizen. AIUI his parents were Egyptian not Saudi.

If you have any genuine evidence that Waleed Ali (contrary to what he's said) supports terrorism or extremism then by all means post it. But don't assign views to him based on a dodgy categorisation.

Ahmad, Waleed Aly's older brother describes
Waleed as :

"He's become a very important voice because
he is very balanced, clear, and intellectually
honest. He's not one to seek attention, that's
probably why he's good at it."

It's funny, but I don't think of him as a muslim
first and foremost - mainly as an Aussie who
makes sense when he opens his mouth. He knows what
he's talking about - and he gives us a diferent
picture of muslims from the one being presented
in the media.

I admire what he has achieved in his life.
And I respect his balanced point of view.
I've spoken to some of his students at Monash
University in the past. They respect him as a lecturer.
You may not agree with everything he says - but
you've got to respect his knowledge and the way he
says it.

A great article.
Senate Committee figures last week by agency staff. Self harm figures since Dutton stopped all family members accompanying a child for medical treatment. Child will now be accompanied by 1 or 2 adults only. Perverse outcomes occurred when entire family accompanied child in the past. Stats - September 3, October 7, November 2, December zero.

Senate Committee – there are approx. 67 children remaining in detention. There are reasons why children aren’t or can’t be released. 1. Parent/s not permitting child to be released as they want child/children to remain with them. 2. Mum or dad (or both) remain in detention for adverse security reasons, it could be identity issues, known for extreme behaviour, or violence, or other reasons. Parents also state they want child/children to remain with them. One can’t force a child to leave a parent.

Senate Committee – Operation Sovereign Borders
Q. How many turn backs since October 15? A. 2
Q. How many people on board? A. 1st - November, 17. 2nd boat, 3. No others since.
Q. Where did boats originate from? A. Both from Indonesia.
Q. Media reports state a boat left India with 6 Sri-Lankans on board what happened to this boat? A. The boat was stopped by Indian Government.
(End of Senate Committee Reports).

Media and Advocates continually rave on how traumatised people must be on Narau. The Australian 24/10/2015 – “Nauru’s President has raised the likelihood that refugees could be permanently settled on the island, in a clear sign of the deepening relations between asylum-seekers and their hosts.

At least one Nauruan woman has given birth to a child fathered by her refugee partner, President Baron Waqa says if marriages occur permanent settlement will become an option.
...cont'd

cont'd
Mr Adeang, who oversees the refugee program in Nauru, says tensions on the island are linked to refugees failing to accept that Australia is no longer a settlement option. “Once that sinks in then they have to appreciate that it’s either Nauru or Cambodia at this time,” he said.

A further media report shows children from Nauru swimming with the locals – what’s wrong with the fact that children are swimming, playing and making friends with the locals, I believe this is perfect "therapy" in overcoming any trauma.

Maybe now is the time for those "hand wringers" and media to settle down and let the Government get on with their job in protecting our Sovereign Borders. The people smugglers/traffickers are criminals who are only interested in "show me the money".

It is all too difficult. There are times when governments have to make
decisions that are unpleasant but the alternative is worse.
We had experience of the alternative so why would anyone press for a
return to that disastrous policy.

There is an economic storm on the way which will generate a great
increase in the number of economic refugees. The situation will be
extreme in many countries and even Australia will be unable to provide
any sustenance for any that turn up on our doorstep.
This next surge of immigration will have people from a wider range of
countries than we have previously seen.
The collapse of international transport of food could see a large
movement out of China, India and Pakistan.
I doubt if Indonesia would be food selfsufficient.

There is a different opinion that the economic collapse will have the
opposite effect as it will make any large migration movement impossible.
Large intrusions on foot would be resisted by a population that was
having a hard time in feeding itself from its own resources.
Many could be expected to undertake cross ocean voyages but it be
a very dangerous exercise.

Some say this year will give a pointer to just how fragile our
economies are and how soon we can see trouble ahead.

Waleed Aly is an apologist for terrorists, and a liar:
“Nigeria’s Boko Haram group last month kidnapped more than 200 schoolgirls from a boarding school and its leader announced they were “slaves” he would sell. Two are already said to be dead.
As so often when Muslim terrorists strike, Aly was brought on by Channel Ten’s The Project to explain away our fears as “an expert in terrorism”.
“So who is this group exactly?” he was asked.
Not once in his answer did “Muslim” or “Islamic” pass Aly’s lips.
“They are a really, really hard group to define “
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/waleed-aly-avoiding-the-obvious-truth/story-fni0ffxg-1226909383829

Could Aly be more disingenuous?

Leo, it is all part of the plan laid out in the Koran.

The Catch 22 is that you can't criticise Islam because the criticism however well founded will turn moderate Muslims into Jihadists.

Heh, heh, good one, Ali.

Then again, just being Muslim is a Catch 22, right?

Waleed Aly is a smart guy, he has gauged his rhetoric to the tune that the ABC and Fairfax drums out.

What he is saying is neither new nor ground breaking, he is telling the coterie of people that determine his future exactly what they want to hear.

Waleed is an empty vessel echoing his master's voice.

I have one question for Aly, or any other muslim - is the Koran right or wrong? He will never answer this, nor will our media ever ask. Of coarse he believes in the Koran and other islamic writings - which command Muslims to kill, rape, treat as sub human any who do not believe - anyone half educated in Islam knows this - so WHY is he allowed to get away with speaking with a forked tongue? WHY are the media hell bent supporting islams destruction of our way of life?

Good article, John.

The Queensland hospital's decision to not send a recovered baby back to Nauru is now sending a signal to refugee claimants on the island that they can purposely injure their children and have an expectation the children will be sent to the same hospital and retained there until they are found a 'safe' home (presumably on the Australian mainland) to be returned to.

Bernie

That's exactly what the people smugglers/criminals are waiting for. They are watching and following Australia closely as their people trafficking model was destroyed.

If the Government caves in - trafficking will re-commence, more lives will be lost at sea.

SAINTS,

The best solution would be to provide a safer alternative for asylum seekers. Were the government to announce that any refugees arriving at Boigu Island will be treated as if they've arrived in Australia by plane. Boigu Island is so close to PNG that there's very little chance of anyone drowning no matter how leaky their boat is.

Once there's a safe alternative, those currently in Nauru or on Manus Island can be resettled in Australia without reviving the trafickers' business model — especially if Australia makes it clear that this is a one off to make up for denying them the safe alternative in the past, nobody crossing the Timor Sea in unseaworthy vessels in future will be resettled in Australia.

Hi Aidan,

So all people, refugees and economic migrants, have to do is fly to Port Moresby and nip around to Boigu, and they'll be jake ? Gosh, I wonder why people haven't thought of that before. Brilliant.

The point, dear child, is that the government is trying to dissuade people from entering Australia illegally. Should they lob onto Boigu, they'll be transferred pretty quick to Manus, awaiting processing.

And one problem with PNG is that it won't be the country they're fleeing persecution in, i.e. the requirement for countries of first arrival to accept genuine refugees. Nobody is a refugee from PNG. Ergo, illegal immigrants. Ergo, Manus Island.

Oy. Like talking to a three-year-old.

Joe

Aiden, the smugglers will just say see, wait a year and they will let you in.
There is an option available to them, just place themselves in the
hands of the UNHCR before they spend any money.
It means of course that those already in the queue will be settled before them.

Any scheme like you suggest would not be viable unless the immigrants
believe they will be let in.

Soon however it will no longer be acceptable by anyone to open the
floodgates. What has happened in Europe is just an early indication
of what could happen when Egypt collapses.

Our problem is how do we stop several million turning up on our doorstep.
It will not just be our problem the whole world will face this.
There is one question that needs an answer.
If the expected economic collapse occurs will the resultant conditions
stop any large scale immigration except over small distances ?

Hi Joe,

The alleged point is to stop people drowning at sea. But the government's policy was never really about saving lives, it was about keeping refugees away. Stopping drownings at sea was never the real objective, it was just a slogan to make Rudd's policy look bad.

And you seem to be implying that flying to Port Moresby then going to Boigu is much easier than just flying to Australia. Why?

Just to reiterate: I'm not saying asylum seekers on Boigu should automatically be given refugee status; I'm saying they should be treated as if they've arrived in Australia by plane. If they don't have a good reason why they can't settle in PNG then they could be deported to PNG. But not Manus Island; that's just cruel.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, the smugglers can say what they like – it doesn't mean anyone will believe them.

Many refugees don't have the option of placing themselves in the UNHCR. And even for those who do, the queue's a myth. They can wait all their lives and still not be settled.

You're looking at the problem the wrong way – we should be trying to profit from the refugees, not keep them all out.

The global economy may decline, but it will not collapse. Any competently managed economy will avoid recession.

Aidan

You say – “The alleged point is to stop people drowning at sea. But the government's policy was never really about saving lives, it was about keeping refugees away. Stopping drownings at sea was never the real objective, it was just a slogan to make Rudd's policy look bad”.

Response – is that what you really believe?

We are dealing with people traffickers/smugglers, criminals – who really don’t care how many lives are lost at sea – any sea. They just waiting for any chance to re-start their people trafficking trade.

You don’t seem to understand the fact that – those who smuggle, traffic people – are criminals, they are organised criminal gangs. People trading is “illegal” and is a criminal offence in any country.

We already have a “solution” to the problem via Minister Morrison and now Minister Dutton. Australia has made it extremely clear to all/any people traffickers/smugglers, criminals – our borders are closed.

Under Howard Government (Liberals) at the end of their reign there were 7 people only in detention. Labor came into power, changed Border Policy, and opened the flood gates for 50,000 illegal boat people (including 8,000 children) who all came via people traffickers/smugglers, criminals. During this time there were 1,200 “souls” lost at sea – that we know of, there could have been many more.

Having paid the fee of $10,000 for each person, on the way over passports and/or other forms of identification were thrown overboard – oh but not that mobile phone.

During this influx of “illegal boat people” or “economic refugees” 17 detention centres were opened. Since 2013 current Government has shut down 13.

Q. Why does it take so long to process people. A. No identification docs.

cont'd
Some relevant facts -

$640M (taxpayer’s dollars) set aside for refugee settlement over 4 years.

$154M (taxpayer’s dollars) being paid out per annum (to all) on Welfare payments.

Government has a deficit of approx. $320B, therefore we are continually “borrowing” for humanitarian intake? The interest rate alone being $1B per month!

Current Affair 10/2/2016 - As at 2013 - 7% (only) of humanitarian intake have a job, the rest are on Welfare.

We can’t afford to continually carry 93% on welfare.

65% of humanitarian intake are on Newstart ($400) – over Ford Estimates.

78% - don’t speak English.

Over 90% of Afghans still on welfare pay.
Over 70% of Sri-Lankans still on welfare pay
( I missed the rest, you can surely check via Channel 9 website)

Our Government choose those who wish to migrate to Australia, not people smugglers/traffickers.

Government has agreed to take in 12,000 refugees – under Humanitarian Settlement.

Under our regular immigration programme the figure this year has been increased to 13,875. Therefore total immigration = 25,875.

Immigration funding $33.8M – 2015, 2016, 2017.

You say –“ Many refugees don't have the option of placing themselves in the UNHCR. And even for those who do, the queue's a myth. They can wait all their lives and still not be settled”.

Response – the queue is not a myth. (I refer to last Senate Committee) - 14,400 registered with UNHCR.

If we didn’t have the influx of 50,000 “queue jumpers” who conveniently tossed their passports and identification docs overboard, those 14,400 would already be here.

I believe Australia is certainly being generous in supporting further humanitarian refugee settlement.

Saints, I have seen those figures of immigrants on welfare previously.
What is a worry is that those drawing welfare seems to be increasing.
We will be facing a time of decreasing levels of welfare once one
government bights the bullet and starts reducing unemployment payments,
pensions, child support etc etc.
You can see the difficulty the government is having in getting any
change to tax or reduction of spending.
What happens when the musical money round stops ?

What then ?
We could have a very large number of unemployed migrants who do not
speak English ?

Bazz

Most of my info has come via Senate Committees which I viewed last week. I note media outlets have been rather “quiet” in reporting most of the salient points provided by various agencies to all committees, which affect us all. We heading into extremely dangerous waters if we keep spending on the " proverbial credit card”.

We all read various stories about those who continue to receive welfare payments – who shouldn’t - and scam the system. Tax payers don’t have a problem in providing welfare where it’s genuinely needed. I get angry when I read, hear of scammers, rorting the system, thereby reducing Government funding budget allocation for those legitimately in need.

Today’s Sky News – regarding people traffickers. I quote – “People traffickers in Turkey have told Sky News NATO’S warships will not be able to stem the flow of refugees heading across the Agean Sea to Europe.

NATO has deployed three ships to provide surveillance to the Turkish authorities to help them crack down on the smuggling gangs.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees have illegally crossed the stretch of water in the last year, overwhelming the European Union’s ability to cope.

Mohammed has been involved in the people smuggling trade for the last two years. He says the gangs are too well organised and there’s too much money involved for it to be halted. As long as people want to be smuggled the smuggling networks will continue to operate.

Turkey has tried to stop it but we the smugglers are well prepared and are always one step ahead.”

I hope Mohammed and his people smuggling gangs are closer to getting caught.

Aidan

Turkish are also finally cracking down on people smugglers in order to protect their borders and save further lives from being lost at sea. Got nothing to do with Kevin Rudd as you asserted in an earlier post regarding our strong stand on Border Security. Turkey doesn't have a Kevin Rudd. It’s about illegal people trafficking and saving lives (including children) from being drowned at sea.

They will never stop it until they start sending them back.
They load the immigrants onto ferries at Kos etc. The present reason
is to take them to Athens.
All they need to do is take the ferry to a Turkish port.
The Turks cannot object because they are being returned to their port of departure.
Just because it is a narrower stretch of water makes no difference.

Nothing like a cry of "We are back !" to stop the trade.

Bazz

Australia can’t solve the “problems of the World”, but we can certainly protect our Sovereign Borders – and must continue to do so.

There are many European countries who refuse to take in any refugees – I wonder why?

Russia has sent their message to the world, loud and clear – we will not settle any refugees. I wonder why?

One only needs to google news reports from those who landed in Germany and other countries. They were promised by people smugglers when you arrive in Germany or France or other countries you will be given a free home and $$$$’s for food you don’t have to worry about anything.

They now state their anger at being conned by people smugglers – criminals.

I ask a question to those “hand-wringers”, advocates and media what about our homeless, those awaiting urgent Public Housing, those also seeking emergency housing fleeing from domestic violence?

Paul Murry on 8/2/2016 provided the following info – Public Housing Waiting Lists
NSW – 60,000
VIC - 34,726
ACT - 2,320

There are further stats covering all States of Australia, which continue to increase.

Most have been on Public Housing lists for 8 to 10 years – and still waiting!

Oh – and don’t forget about the approx $320B – black hole – with continued spending on that “proverbial credit card”.

Media, advocates and “hand-wringers” all complain about Australia not showing enough compassion to refugees.

Yes, we are a multicultural country, where we all live in peace and harmony, and proud to call Australia home.

We are also called the lucky Country.

How about we assist those in desperate need – on our own doorstep first! Their waiting queue for housing, being along the lines of "The Impossible Dream".

SAINTS,
Firstly, let's get one thing straight: boats crossing our borders do not threaten our borders. Protecting the nation's borders is one of the most important duties of any government, but stopping the boats had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with border protection. Border security is a completely different issue that's much less important, and our borders have CONSTANTLY been among the most secure in the world.

And yes, I really do believe that the "saving lives at sea" claim is a lie to justify xenophobic policies, not a genuine concern for their lives. And I remind you that we don't know how many have been lost at sea after the Libs came in because they don't comment on operational matters. But what we are doing to them now is evil. Not only are we failing to help them, but we're preventing them from helping themselves and preventing NZ from helping them as well.

When something is illegal it tends to become lucrative, hence the criminal gangs. But that doesn't mean everyone involved in people smuggling is bad. Many are, of course, but far from all. And most are not trading people.

Refugees are not to blame for government deficits. The economic cycle is: whatever the government does at the moment, it will run a deficit. But we have unlimited credit so we should stop worrying about it and concentrate on making Australia more productive. Later on in the economic cycle we will be able to (and should) run a surplus, but right now we have neither the need nor the ability to run one.

(TBC)

(continued)
I'm certainly not suggesting continually carrying 93% on welfare. We should aim to get them into the workforce quickly. But I notice that figure is a few years old, and I would expect more of them to be in work by now. And I've previously heard that most of those who aren't in work are in education, so will presumably become taxpayers in the future.

If refugees can't already speak english then generally they should be resettled in a country other than Australia. An exception is the small proportion of refugees who are persecuted in Indonesia.

Do you have a reference for that Senate Committee figure?

The fact remains that most refugees have no opportunity to get into "the queue".

Aidan says:

"When something is illegal it tends to become lucrative, hence the criminal gangs. But that doesn't mean everyone involved in people smuggling is bad. Many are, of course, but far from all. And most are not trading people."

People smuggling is an illegal, parasitic activity, but "that doesn't mean everyone involved in people smuggling is bad"??!!

"Many are...but far from all. And most are not trading people."

What the hell are you talking about, Aidan? Any idea?

Calwest, I have not heard of a good smuggler.
None of them send out properly loaded boats, always they are overloaded.
The boats out of Indonesia are always on their last legs.
The fisherman will not sell their good boats they need them.
Anything the smugglers get are probably clapped out.

Certainly they might do for a bit of coastal fishing, but not for ocean voyaging.
The same in Turkey look at those inflatables they use, packed to the gunnels.
I would not get in them to cross Sydney Harbour.

The only good smuggler is a drowned one.

calwest,

Governments have promoted the stereotype of people smugglers as evil.

The reality is very different.
Or more accurately, partly very different, as there are many evil people in the people smuggling industry.

But there are also good people, with a genuine desire to help persecuted people.

And there are also fisherman trying to make a living after the Timor Sea fisheries were devastated by an enormous oil spill from an Australian oil rig. The problem was similar, and on a similar scale, to what subsequently occurred in the Gulf of Mexico, but it received much less media attention and most of the people affected did not receive compensation.

You said people trading is illegal. And you're right. But the term "people trading" implies slavery, which is absolutely nothing to do with bringing people to Australia by boat. Even the term "people trafficking" can give that implication, so it's best to avoid using it in this context and look instead at what's actually going on.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Bazz, when Australia destroys the boats that people smugglers use, it's hardly surprising that they're reluctant to use the good ones. If indeed they have good ones. As I said, many are only in the people smuggling business because they're broke.

Aidan, you used the term "people trading", I did not. You attribute to the term a meaning which equals "slavery", I did not.

In fact, your definition of "people trading" seems to me to be unique to you.

Your extremely discriminating assessment of people smugglers as "some good, some bad" is also unique to you. To me, a people smuggler is just a people smuggler, someone who is intent on breaking Australian law. They are all - ALL - just evil crooks.

Grow up, Aidan, they're doing it for money, they're not some perverted form of freedom fighter.

Aidan

You say - “Firstly, let's get one thing straight: boats crossing our borders do not threaten our borders. Protecting the nation's borders is one of the most important duties of any government, but stopping the boats had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with border protection”.

Response – So 50,000 “illegal boat people” including 8,000 children arriving on our shores with no documentation or identification as to who or where they really come from is not a threat to Australia? There is a great difference between “legitimate” refugees and “economic” illegal boat people – queue jumpers.

You say – .” Border security is a completely different issue that's much less important, and our borders have CONSTANTLY been among the most secure in the world”.

Answer – Gee, did you miss those 50,000 “illegal boat people” arriving on our shores?

You say – “And yes, I really do believe that the "saving lives at sea" claim is a lie to justify xenophobic policies, not a genuine concern for their lives”

Response – That’s your belief. It’s not mine.

You say – .” And I remind you that we don't know how many have been lost at sea after the Libs came in because they don't comment on operational matters. But what we are doing to them now is evil. Not only are we failing to help them, but we're preventing them from helping themselves and preventing NZ from helping them as well.”
continued

continued
Response - I applaud Liberal Government not reporting on operational matters. People smugglers/traffickers criminal trade has stopped. If we aren’t helping them – as you say, how is that we see pictures and read of the children on Nauru swimming with the local children. They are permitted to come and go. Some are now working on Nauru and setting up businesses. We have just provided Nauru with a further $26M to build a new hospital, which will offer extensive services, doctors and staff of the same quality as our hospitals. You might like to look up what the original deal on the table was with Gillard and NZ. Pure evil is what ISIS is doing to their own people. You might also like to research the conditions people are living in overseas. Nauru is not so bad after all.

You say – “When something is illegal it tends to become lucrative, hence the criminal gangs. But that doesn't mean everyone involved in people smuggling is bad. Many are, of course, but far from all. And most are not trading people”.

Response – People smuggling/traffickers – are criminals. You also say most are not trading people. What do you think the term “People smuggling/trafficker” means? Smuggling, trafficking people is a criminal offence.

You say – “Refugees are not to blame for government deficits But we have unlimited credit so we should stop worrying about it and concentrate on making Australia more productive. Later on in the economic cycle we will be able to (and should) run a surplus, but right now we have neither the need nor the ability to run one”

Response – I didn’t say refugees “alone” were to blame for government deficit. Re-read my earlier post. However, we don’t have “unlimited” credit either. We can’t afford to continue paying $1B per month (and growing) on interest alone without making a dent in current debt. We have the ability to decrease our debt, however, Mr Turnbull with his innovative ideas team and others continue to spend, spend, spend.

continued
Would like to see balance sheet in 10 years time if we continue to spend, spend, spend. You might have a different view of the shape of our economy then, including being ten years older.

You say – “If refugees can't already speak english then generally they should be resettled in a country other than Australia. An exception is the small proportion of refugees who are persecuted in Indonesia”.

Response – So you believe we should only take English speaking “ illegal boat people” – and chuck the other’s out. Oh o.k. What a wonderful view you have of those that don’t fit into your grand “plan”. So all those migrants during the 1950’s onwards who came to Australia from Italy, Greece and many other foreign lands who couldn’t speak English upon arrival should also have been chucked out?. Those early migrants from the 1950’s onwards worked hard, learned the language, assimilated and embraced our culture. There are those here now that don’t wish to accept our Western Culture – and want to cause us harm. Should we chuck them out also?

You say – “Do you have a reference for that Senate Committee figure?”

Response – Google search Senate Committee Reports. I watched it live and took notes.

You say – “The fact remains that most refugees have no opportunity to get into "the queue"”.

Response - That’s because those illegal 50,000 “queue jumpers” got in first – and that’s a fact!