EMMA DAWSON....

I recommend a book also its called "The Politics of Federalism" by Syed Kechik... might be avail in Australia, but NOT in Malaysia which is the focus of its content.

Syed Kecik is a very honest Malay Muslim journalist who grasped the nettle and described the reality of the politics of the Sabah Election in 1972 where it cost the Malaysian government $30million ringgit to get RID of Tun Mustapha who, in a state with a population of under 1 million had his own 707 private Jet. (The whole federal election for Malaysia at that time cost only $3million Ringgit)

What did Kecik reveal about IMMIGRATION? Aaaaah..that's the question.

His book might be appropriately renamed "'Refugee'Immigration, a good source of VOTES and paramilitary support"

Back door illegals? (yes, I describe them as such if they seek to circumvent the lawful established chanels) -Mustapha would only have one question "Are they from the Southern (muslim) Phillipines, Sulu"? if 'yes' then he welcomed them with open arms.
Why? simple, because they added to his support base and he had ancestral connections to the Sultanate of Sulu.

When a Roman Catholic Chief minister got up after Mustapha's demise, suddenly the 'Refugees' started to flood in from (Catholic) TIMOR... gee, surprise surprise.

The suggestion that the pro refugee campaigns in Australia have no political motivation and goal is to indulge in naivity of apocalyptic proportions.
The goals are:

1/ DAMAGE HOWARD at all costs.
2/ RAISE POLITICAL PROFILE of such groups as the Socialist Alliance.
3/ INCREASE their support base.
4/ ADD to the Labor/Left/Green/Democrat voter base, which in the long term will ensure their power.

Presumably, the 'Coalition' objectives would be to limit the above, and to focus on the legal flow, with an emphasis on 'skills' which they may believe will be more likely to translate into a more favorable voting pattern.

In the off chance that there is a genuine compassion aspect to this whining about 'poor refugees' I would suggest it is admirable, though naive and ignorant of the long term consequences for Australias cultural,social and political cohesian.

GYM FISH.. we are in full agreement re your last post mate.

RHIAN says:

"This (humane policy) can be achieved by treating all arrivals decently, processing their applications quickly, and detaining only those that seem to be a genuine risk to the domestic community –"

Who is going to disagree with that? Not me for sure.

But lets look at the reality:

1/ "Treat arrivals 'decently'"
a) Housed
b) Fed
c) Clothed
d) Protected
e) Educated.
Errr seems pretty decent to me.

The most indecent treatment of 'refugees' comes from they themselves, especially those of majority religious faith from places like Iraq who treat Christians, Mandeans and other non Muslims as 'scum,dirt,sub humans and unclean' not even eating with them. (Refer well documented reports on this)
So, the major weakness of Australian authorities is that they did not KICK out the perpetrators of such inhuman callous behavior at first sight of it.

2/ "Processing Applications Quickly"

yes.. clap clap... as far as I know, most are EXCEPT where:
a)They have discarded their documentation.
b)They have disagreed with the initial assessment and appeal.
c)Departmental stuff ups.. yes they do occur.

Then we have the interminable 'enquiries, commentaries,court goings on, demonstrations' etc.. all of which have the politcal goals of simply 'Damaging Howard' and the other political objectives listed in my last post.

I can think of many other ways to damage Mr Howard, but.. they would require much more work. Its too easy to pay rent-a-crowd to roll up to a detention centre, alert the Media and wave a few 'Resistance' placards in the face of the cameras.

So, my total cynicism over all this 'compassion' remains in tact

I see views expressed of Leigh and Sage similar to mine.

As for the ignorant scrote who wrote this piffling dross, may he fall on his own pen and die of ink poisoning.

Australia has a significant refugee acceptance quota. That Australia chooses to favour / give priority to refugee applicants from refugees camps who can be seen to be “refugees”

Over

a bunch of queue jumping scumbags who are as likely to be simply seeking migration to a more favourable economic environment or fleeing civil prosecution for criminal acts in their real homeland and had sufficient resources to bribe a criminal people smuggler to attempt to sneak them past immigration control..

Is a matter for Australia and not some lefty London journalist parading a cause.

The postscript “Perhaps feeding people to the sharks would be a more effective deterrent.”

Now there is an idea - maybe we could start with a test sample using Philippe Legrain,

Except the sharks would likely spit him back.

Everyone is avoiding the central point in Legrain's article and it's a good one: it is largely impossible to fairly and accurately determine a real refugee from an illegal economic migrant.

It's simply too easy to invent a story if you come from the right geographical area or thereabouts. The whole refugee system is based on the bogus idea that we can winnow out real refugees with an acceptable degree of accuracy. People who work in the field know this.

Logan Olive Oil

I’m sure you are a very nice and well-meaning person, but I’ve got to say that I find the abject misuse of the racist and elitist slurs just terrible. It is all too easy to brand those with whom you disagree as racists, without adding any substance to your criticism. In fact, it is every bit as bad as blatant racist slurs themselves.

Can you please address the points in my last post. I’d love to know if you can find anything racist or elitist amongst those principles and goals.

“I just hope that with the all the talk of Australia struggling to provide water to its population we never find ourselves in the position of millions of refugees and destitute people throughout the world.”

Well with Legrain’s absurd open-border policy, that’s exactly what we would get.

“How will people feel if one day we're forced to search for security…”

How about thinking one big step ahead of that – protecting the security we’ve got.

The most important thing is to protect a half-decent quality of life and to do it sustainably. If we don’t do this in Australia, we won’t be in any sort of position to help any of the world’s needy.

Boaz_david

It’s true that some arrivals have no papers, and a few may even deliberately destroy them, but many do have identification, and its absence is not necessarily proof of guilt or malice. And check out Andrew Bartlett’s article on the refugees on Nauru – “it was over two years before many of them were able to access any meaningful legal assistance to help with their claims”

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5803

The list of “humane” treatments you describe is no more than we guarantee the rapists and murderers in our high-security jails. These are the minimum humane provisions for perpetrators, not victims, as many refugees are. Or would you be happy to spend years in detention so long as you were fed and clothed adequately?

You can be cynical about the motives of demonstrators and do-gooders, but have you examined your own heart on this issue?