What a wet piece of nonsense. Protecting ourselves from illegal arrivals - invaders - has nothing whatsoever with our "moral values"; it certainly highlights the immoralityfoff so-called refugees who think they can intrude on other people's countries and bludge of them for the rest of their lives.

"Only those lacking compassion and the determination to discover alternatives would find the so-called Pacific Solution acceptable."

That's only your opinion, bud. And it's costing us millions to operate, when the illegals could have - should have been - sent packing. But of course, you lefty prats are morally superior to the hoi polloi: in your own fevered minds, that is.

Well I suppose it would have been moral to allow undocumented folks, some possibly with criminal records or of questionable character, to come here and sometimes drown trying?

And what increases the odds against humane resettlement, is the fact these folk to a virtual generic man, have deliberately destroyed their documentation! Documentation which they needed just to travel to comparatively safe transit countries, which could if kept, verified or disproved their claims?

[After WW11, displaced persons treated their documentation as their most prized possessions, given it almost always identified them as bona fide, genuine refugees!]

Yes there is a regional solution that still destroys the people traffickers criminal business model. And that is the shelved Malaysia agreement, destroyed by the Abbott lead liberals for a perceived political outcome?

The Malaysia agreement achieved multiple objectives, namely the resettlement of genuine refugees, who have waited sometimes for generations for resettlement.

It also empties out the "camps" and replaces that with families in Malaysian apartments, and free to work or go to school or socialize, while they wait for resettlement, even if that is never ever going to be in Australia; the sugar on the table that is the very core of the criminal people trafficker's business model.

I see nothing immoral about economic migrants with patently concocted tales of persecution, being given short shrift.

Given the limited places, allowing them to circumvent our immigration laws, invariably denies a genuine refugee a place!

Now that and people drowning is the only part of this whole fiasco that is immoral!
Rhrosty.

I didn't get past sentence two. "Only those lacking compassion and the determination to discover alternatives would find the so-called Pacific Solution acceptable."

I have compassion especially for the thousands who drowned on their way here or were ripped apart on the rocks of Christmas Island. The author is simply saying "Oooooh, look over there! Unicorns!"

I have determination to "discover alternatives". We've had a decade or two and what have we come up with that is better? Rudd's plan? Gillard's plan? Hanson-Young's plan? How about getting the nations that spawn these refugees to lift their game. They should copy us.

Compassion is not a word I'll accept from lefties.

"Not all refugees carry radical disruptive agendas – many would enrich our society and make fine citizens. Our quota could increase."

Perhaps not, but too many have not just disruptive agendas but criminal or terrorist intent. On that basis, why admit even one of these economic invaders? And the usual sophistry about the "enrichment" of our society by importing large numbers of culturally incompatible, unemployable immigrants doesn't convince me at all, let alone the prospect of an increased quota and greater cost.

Just reverse the argument: how many of the countries from which the invaders have come would accept, feed, clothe and house tens of thousands of Australian "refugees"? Hell, most of them won't even take Muslims from the country next door.

Our wonderful PM has also pointed out that many of those who have attempted terrorist activities in Australia have been second or third generation immigrants. In his view, I guess, that makes everything OK. But the way to stop them, in that case, is to stop the first generation. Simple, really. Unless, of course, Duncan, you can tell us all how to identify the bad eggs out of the tens of thousands of queue jumpers now in Indonesia.

There is nothing "moral" about importing a hostile underclass, then paying billions of dollars of Australian taxpayers to feed, clothe, house and perhaps "educate" them for the rest of their lives and perhaps the lives of their descendants, while at the same time they plot and plan to undermine the host culture. Not moral, just stupid. We don't actually have a great need for female genital mutilation, child brides, rape, the subjugation of women and girls and the rest of their baggage. Oh, and if we have all that money to throw around, let's start with our own homeless.

In any case, we now have, thanks to Angela Merkel, a living example of large scale Islamist invasion. Let's just wait for another year or two to see how the coming collapse of Germany and the EU plays out.

What's up Duncan?

Are some of your Indonesian mates finding things a bit tough, without the hundreds of million the people smuggling operations put into the economy.

Try finding something legitimate to write about.

Another leftie telling Australians what a bunch of reprobates we are.

European governments and bureaucracies were full of moralising socialists like you, Duncan, and now Europe as a combined entity is on the point of collapse. You would think that with the glaring example of how to destroy your own society with the unrestricted immigration of people from dysfunctional societies, people like you would grow a brain and not make the same mistake.

One definition of "insanity" is, "making the same mistake, over and over again."

Memo to Duncan. Socialism does not work. Multiculturalism leads to internal division and civil war. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

There are two aspects of this discussion that seem to be ignored by the critics of the Pacific Solution.

The first is that this illegal migration is only a symptom of the real problem, which is over-population. Since nothing will be done about over-population, the illegal migration problem can be expected to get worse into the indefinite future.

The second is that there are only two alternatives available to deal with this problem:

One is to allow unlimited entry to all.

The second is to allow a limited number to enter, coupled with an effective method of enforcing the limit, otherwise you are back to the first option. This is the option currently supported by both major parties.

It would be interesting to discover which method the author proposes, remembering that although the situation on Nauru is terrible, all the alternatives are worse.

Duncan,
It doesn’t help your argument too much by comparing it with the ‘stolen’ generations myth.
Can you or anyone else actually document at least a dozen Aboriginal children who were forcibly taken from their parents?

I, like many others question the validity of the stolen generation claim. I wouldn't be using that as an analogy for unethical behaviour.

Edward Carson and Big Nana,

+1

Well said you two.

OLO 9 Duncan Graham 0

plerdsus summed it up well.

Edward Carson and Big Nana obviously have no idea what they are talking about.
You may not have met any Indigenous people who were stolen from their families by the Government policies of the day, but I certainly have.

I have met many, many Indigenous people during the course of my community work who were taken into state care as children, with awful stories of being rounded up in playgrounds and areas away from their parents so they couldn't resist, or hide the kids. They told very sad stories of eventually finding their lost families, but so many of their parents had died beforehand.

Just because you haven't met any Indigenous people of the Stolen Generation doesn't mean there weren't any true stories. That is a naive, ignorant position to take indeed.

Duncan,

"Only those lacking compassion and the determination to discover alternatives would find the so-called Pacific Solution acceptable." is mindless drivel.

The only attempt at an alternative to the Pacific solution led to the deaths at sea of up to 2000 people incl women and children and the misery of 30 000 in detention.

So before sanctimoniously starting to finger wag, I would respectfully request that you or others of your ilk propose a viable alternate.

Hey Duncan

We all know that Most of the $10,000 each refugees pay to people smugglers goes into bribes/tax for the Indonesian Army and Navy, Borders and Customs at Java's airports and sea ports. Even politicians like Mayors and Governors may cream off their share.

This bribery is not an unusual happening that can be cracked down on in Indonesia. Its more like unofficial commissions or taxation.

Bribes from Refugees via People Smugglers is an essential way of life in Indonesia. Indonesia lives on bribes because official pay is far too low to live on.

Bali Process or not Indonesia's excuse that its mainly Sunni Muslim population won't accept Shia Muslime refugees doesn't wash in Australia.

Stick to what you know mate.

You're observations and analysis of power plays in Indonesia is much respected.

Cheers

Pete

Duncan, you have failed to grasp the truth of the matter,

The so-called refugees are not refugees to Australia, point blank, they have no right to enter Australia, arriving from Indonesia puts them squarely as economic invaders, they could be classed as refugees in Indonesia but not if they attempt to come here.

As their first port of call (Indonesia) they arrive in a country which is their first point of sanctuary thus they have a legal right to seek asylum in that country. Any additional travel to a third country, say Australia, should make them ineligible to apply to seek Australian protection/citizenship.

Muslim refugees settling in a Muslim country (Indonesia) makes sense to me.

The UN should be assisting Indonesia manage 'their refugees' thus negating any direct cost burden to Australian taxpayers. Cut and dried you would think but no, PC gone mad here has turned the entire issue into a farce.

Additionally, the UN should demand the US and its allies remove their influence from the countries of origin where these displaced people originate from, but we all know this won't happen, there is oil and other resources western countries demand to feed their insatiable economies, so that definitely won't happen.

Our quota of immigration needs to, in the main, focus on people who will accept the Australian way of life, I.e. Assimilate and include those who can enhance our economic productivity and social institutions and values.

A small intake of genuine refugees is also fine, and yes it should be selective, those that support the values outlined in the paragraph above.

The "Stolen Generation" story, Suse, is a very specific proposition: that Aboriginal children were "stolen" from their families because of their aboriginality or part-aboriginality.

That you would believe the stories fed to you without verification is bad enough. It's too easy for people to rationalise away unpleasant circumstances or bad behaviour in the past and blame whitey.

That you fail to comprehend that many of those children were removed because their parents had failed to care for them adequately, or were incapable of doing so, is beyond belief.

And similar circumstances apply today: kids in Aboriginal communities, particularly remote communities, are exposed to very real physical and moral dangers and it would probably be in the best interests of many of them to be removed.

We currently have an eleven year old Aboriginal boy in WA charged with murder. Perhaps that could have been avoided had he been removed from the community which allowed him to be involved in late night violence.

Suse, I don't care how many aborigina people you have met who claimed to be descendants of stolen children. I married into a huge aboriginal family 45 years ago, and have spent all that time living in the aboriginal community in the Kimberley. I know for a fact that part aboriginal children were not removed from their families living in towns. Thousands of part aboriginal children grew up in those towns right under the noses of the police and welfare without any fear.
The children who were removed were those living in remote areas like cattle stations who had been abandoned by their white fathers and were living in terrible squalor with single mothers who had no visible means of support.
I have also met 2 people who falsely claimed to have been stolen from their family in the Kimberley when it has been acknowledged time and again by their family that they were actually adopted out by their grandmothers because their mothers were underage single girls with no husband or man to support them.
Relying on the stories of events that happened in childhood is notoriously risky because many of those memories are false and when you look at the actual facts of the removals it is obvious the government relied on the same welfare conditions that were applied to white children when they removed the part aboriginal ones. If anything, the bar for decent living conditions was set much lower for aboriginal kids.

Calwest, you have obviously believed the stories told to you by 'whities' who feel guilty about our bad past as regards how foreigners dealt with Aboriginals back then.
How do you know they told the truth?
Maybe Rudd and his government apologized for nothing then?

Big Nana, I don't care how many Indigenous family members you have, but obviously that family were lucky back in the days of Government systematic removal of part-Aboriginals from often perfectly fine families.

Are you suggesting that everyone I spoke to, in the Pilbara, Kimberley and Metro Indigenous population, lied to me? For what purpose?
If indeed you are part of a large Aboriginal family you must surely know of the policy of taking 'half-caste' children from families just because they thought they should be raised in white families instead, or at least work for white families?

Suseonline,

Your arguments are pathetic.

The people who fed you inaccurate or self-serving stories which you are only to ready to accept uncritically may well have believed what they told you. That doesn't make them accurate. Clearly, you made no attempt to verify what you had been told.

Indeed, despite the royal commission, no Aboriginal "stolen" child has ever been identified, so far as I'm aware.

My paternal grandmother was part of the so-called "Stolen Generation". She was raised by a white family who told her she was Mauri: apparently in those days there was some sort of hierarchy of discrimination and being a Mauri was to be in a better social position than being Aboriginal. She died an old woman believing she was Mauri. She was a wonderful grandmother and a wonderful woman and I still miss her. But the reality is, she wasn't "stolen".

My grandmother married a German who died in an internment camp during WW2, regarded as an enemy alien, while both his sons were in the Australian army.

Nevertheless, I don't doubt my grandmother's foster family were doing what they thought was best for her in their situation.

You are blind to the most obvious and simplest explanation: Aboriginal children were removed from their families because the families would not or could not raise them in satisfactory circumstances. The stories you peddle are completely unsubstantiated.

The foster families who raised Aboriginal children and gave them good, productive lives are those we should thank, not denigrate.

Here are three aboriginal children who were not "stolen", Susieonline.

Deborah Melville.

Foster child Deborah died in the dirt in a suburban Darwin backyard, propped against a trailer. She was suffering from a leg infection which had spread into the bone, and was visited by FACS case workers the day before she died. A FACS worker assured the child, “I am not here to take you away.”

A manslaughter trial and coronial inquiry was told that Deborah probably died in excruciating pain, and that she had been unable to control her bowel and bladder in the days before her death. Because of this, her carers, Denise Reynolds and Tony Melville, put her outside to sit in the dirt. Though Deborah was living in filthy circumstances, FACS reported that she was “happy and healthy.”

Peter.

Seven week old Peter starved to death in the back of a hot car on the Stuart Highway in 2005. Peter was born to a drug using mother who’s six other children were known to FACS. In 2002, one of the children, a daughter, was taken (stolen?) and taken to Alice Springs Hospital at three months old, “haunted and looking like a bony skeleton.”

Peter at death weighed 1kg less than his birth weight, and during his brief life, FACS officers were repeatedly contacted with reports that the baby was extremely skinny. There were various attempts to remove Peter from his mother’s care, but she was unco-operative, and FACS did not ask the police to forcibly remove (steal) the child.

Joy.

Joy was assessed by health workers as being ‘at risk of severe harm”, and she was one of eight teenage girls in a remote mining town who were being sexually abused by a government official. The teenager, who was born with fetal alcohol syndrome, had a long history of neglect in her aboriginal family. As early as two, she was deposited at a local health clinic because nobody was looking after her. But repeated attempts by the police to get FACS to intervene to protect Joy came to nothing.

LEGO, I know more than most about today's problems with Indigenous children, but I thought we were discussing the Stolen Generation here?

Calwest, you can't know for sure that everyone else except you is lying about this issue.
I have no reason to doubt the stories I was told, added to by extremely deep sadness in their eyes. But hey, you know best, even when you weren't there.

I can't argue with a totally closed mind like yours.
Don't call me a liar when you have no proof.

I don't think you're a liar, Suse. I think you're a gullible fool, incapable of intellectual rigour. Nor did I say that all of the people who told you their stories with sad eyes were lying. Most likely, they're just misinformed or repeating "stories" handed down through the family or community.

That doesn't make them real or true.

Protesting from you doesn't make what you say true either...without knowing everyone's story...which you don't.
Who is the fool now?

Suse, you have the IQ of a box of rocks, without the saving grace of any sort of education, apparently.

The truth is not a tray of fruit from which you can pick the pieces you find palatable.

There is truth and there is fiction: it's like the difference between science and religion - and you are just a "believer".

You are impervious to truth. You wallow in cheap sentiment and rumour.

One doesn't "choose" which "stories" to believe: the black or the white. There are bases for assessing truth - and listening to the unsubstantiated, heart-tugging stories of people with sad eyes isn't one of them.

Anyone with a few IQ points to rub together would understand that without having to be told. Apparently you've never heard of the benefits which flowed from The Enlightenment. Too late now, I expect.

I don't think I have ever read so much ignorant tosh in one article, talk about the same old discredited lies being dished out as something new.
1. there are no people smugglers, there have never been any people smugglers because it is a legal right to come and seek asylum and paying for help is not a crime or immoral.
2. the only people we have a legal obligation to are those who seek protection here, we have zero obligation to the people in camps anywhere in the world.
3. everyone has the right to seek asylum without fear of discrimination, punishment or other atrocities being inflicted on them

Surely after 15 years of these same old lies being told and not one person every being charged with anything or denied because they paid to get here the lies would stop.

To Susieonline.

The "Stolen Generation(s)" Lie was invented by a white activist named Peter Read. The accusation was, that successive State and Federal governments of both the Right and the Left, had removed aboriginal children from their loving parents in order to "breed out the black" and thereby commit "genocide" on the aboriginal people. It is a monstrous accusation so far fetched and ridiculous that even Arjay and David G would have had trouble swallowing it. Naturally, Susie, you swallowed it without any trouble.

That thousands of aboriginal and part aboriginal children were removed from unacceptable circumstances, and educated and fed, is no doubt true. The same thing is happening today. Thousands more were forced to learn a job skill to make them self sufficient, in remote areas where workers were needed. Which is a damn site more sensible than the present situation of aboriginal children simply going feral. The removal of at risk aboriginal children was a policy originally thought up by the Communist Party of Australia, as a way of helping aboriginal people achieve equality.

But today's lefties saw it as a way of slagging off at the Australian people that they despise so much. That the CPA originally demanded it's implementation was conveniently forgotten by the Left. They got away with the Lie, because they knew most Australians were ignorant about their own history.

Lied to by the Lefties, thousands of aboriginal people lodged compensation claims about being "stolen" and so the High Court had to decide whether the accusation as true. The High Court ruled that it was not true. Got that? Not true. No genocide. No breeding out the black. The removal of at risk aboriginal children was for good reasons and was a "moral imperative".

The famous Gunnar/Cubillo test case was a prime example. The judge in that case ruled that Cubilllo had never been stolen "but had been convinced by others that he must have been." The evidence in that case showed that the Cubillo was removed when it was discovered that his uncle intended to murderer him and was "digging his grave.

Letter to the Editor, "The Australian" (6/2/10) newspaper in response to a media story about academics hosting a seminar about how white people oppress aboriginal people and cause them to suffer.

Dr Dean Robertson, Tennant Creek Hospital, NT

"Dear Dr Hutchings

I was interested to read of your “Twisting Mirrors” seminar that you are organizing (Strewth, The Australian newspaper, 5/2/10) "The Australian" reports that the exhibition will explore the “mimetic instruments by which current social policy and journalism in Australia construct a “performance” of a degraded indigenous social condition in order to justify ongoing state intervention in indigenous lives.”

Tonight, while I write this, I am the doctor saddled with a nightshift at Tennant Creek Hospital, some 2000 Klms north of your hallowed hall of academia. Beside me is a child with nowhere to go because all of his family members are blind drunk. The parade of the bashed and bleeding has begun. Hanging in the night air is the sickly sweet stench of blood and alcohol, cut by the plaintive wails of beaten humanity. The suffering is enormous, but is expected and even accepted by its victims. Working here is like dodging punches in a teeming public bar while stitching smashed faces. The starving babies hardly get a look in.

There is no need to “construct a performance” of a degraded indigenous social condition. All around me the indigenous social condition is utterly appalling. The more that journalism exposes the indigenous social condition, the better. Australians should be ashamed. I think that ivory tower liberals should stop wasting public money that would be better spent improving housing, health and education in indigenous communities. Quit arguing with fancy language and wake up to the reality. We all bleed the same colour."

Aboriginal literacy declining

Letter to the Editor The Australian March 16 2010

When I worked at Kununurra about five years ago, it was common to see a group of young men from Wadeye being escorted by an older man in the town centre. The young men needed the old man because the young men could not speak sufficient English to make themselves understood, and could not write well enough to withdraw money from their bank account. The old man, schooled in a mission school, could do both quite well.

The culture of aversion to school at Wadeye is years old. How come we have another generation being schooled in the same dysfunctional manner?

Chris Squelch, Mount Isa, Queensland.

Wow, Lego, powerful posts. Thank you.