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