The problem isn't so much with the government's immigration and refugee placement policies. It's the obvious and shameful dog-whistling tactics being deployed just prior to calling a Federal election.

From the yapping and snarling evident in this thread and others on similar topics, I'd say that Kevin Andrews' ploy is working quite well. Expect more in the weeks to come.

This article expresses the situation quite well:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22547589-952,00.html

Well, I didn't really know anything about this issue until I read this article and the comments. Now I do (maybe).

The upshot seems to be that a politician has lied for political gain, which is lamentable but hardly surprising.

And isn't it funny how people deny there's any racism in Australian society and then go on about how "ethnics" commit so much crime.

My thanks to CJ Morgan for linking to that article explaining "dog whistle politics". Its one of those phrases that have really annoyed me because I could sort of work out what it was supposed to mean, but was never completely sure. It certainly lacks the resonance of some other political insults ("chardonnay socialists", for example).

Cheers!

Rhys.

Mickijo, I don't really see the point you're getting at in that scarcely understandable stream of invective, but a well constructed argument it ain't.
Perhaps you're missing the point that Sudanese people in Australia, per capita, are committing less crimes than the average Australian.

If you don't want to believe me, at least listen to a right winger - this was the comment from Andrew Bolt:

"But if you still feel you need to whack someone in this latest race riot, have a (mild) crack at Kevin Andrews for making the Sudanese seem worse than the crime figures suggest, by saying he cut the proportion of Africans in refugee intake from 70 per cent last year to 30 now because they'd had trouble settling in."

It's all well and good to accuse people of being ignorant luvvies, but you're hardly offering anything by way of informed comment yourself, so to be honest, I find that a bit rich.

Well Irfans article has certainly provoked debate. I am right to be critical of Irfan's standard of writing. He is capable of much better and it is dissappointing to see. He has constantly said to others not to judge all Muslims by the actions of a few. I can only surmise that he may get paid extra if an article attracts more than 100 posts.

bushbasher, Irfan is using one isolated incident to argue against a policy and milking the victimhood (oh the poor mother) for all it is worth. What about the feelings of the mother of the young Asian lad killed in Telopia St?

Bruce Haigh, Whats bonkers? Is it my criticism of Irfans argument? Is it the refugee intake of 30% African and 70% Iraqi and Asian? What ratio of refugees should there be and why? And where from?

healthwatcher, Irfan is quite capable of putting his arguement in less than 2000 words.

For those that say it is racist. There is no credible arguement. Are you saying that some refugees are more deserving because of their situation or skin colour.

I see nothing wrong with integration assesment. If one group of Sudanese,or any other group, are known to integrate well, and another group of differing culture are known not to integrate. It would be stupid to continue to bring in the group that will not integrate.

no, banjo. irfan is using one example to introduce and highlight the history of the howard government's divisiveness and nastiness.

dresdener, i didn't call anyone 'racist'. so knock it off with the meaningless quotes. i suggested that andrews and the department of immigration had a history of being divisive and nasty. i suggested that banjo's one-off claim was ludicrous. you suggest otherwise?

We have to ask ourselves a serious question;Do we want to be the repository of all the world's problems?All cultures evolve at their own pace and to bring cultures here that seriously undermine the values that have provided the prosperity that many other races now enjoy must be challenged regardless of the ideology or feel good intentions of those like Irfan.

Irfan himself,is a very divisive character as born witness by his biased article.Irfan do you still want Sharia Law introduced into Australia?