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.