It’s good living west of the Great Dividing Range where we don’t have to put up with things like “Refugee Realities” and other do-gooding nonsense about refugees being no different to (sic) the rest of us.

The statement on differences is obviously untrue. The “rest of us” are not refugees nor, these days, have we anything in common with refugees racially or culturally.

On the brighter side, the author says that only 8,000 people out of the city’s large population attended his little theme park. There is, perhaps, hope for common sense yet, although it seems that a large percentage of attendees were school children, probably under duress and subjected to brainwashing.

“Sadly, in recent years, Australia's record of fairness to refugees has been tarnished by programs such as mandatory detention and off-shore processing.”

Sadly for Mr. Hewitt, perhaps, but supported by most Australians and both major political parties, Labor being the instigator of the policy for ILLEGAL entrants to Australia. UN processed refugees have never been detained.

Mr. Hewitt’s faith in the Rudd Government conforming to his ideas of right and wrong is misplaced. As an economic rationalist, Kevin Rudd knows that Nauru costs too much, but Christmas Island remains, and facilities are still being enlarged. Australia might have obligations to take UN processed refugees, but not illegal entrants, despite the blathering that there is no such thing as illegal “refugees”.

Mandatory detention for illegal entrants and visa over stayers will be retained by any government wanting to stay in government. Policies are not decided by a few professional do-gooders and lefties.

As for expanding “the quota of refugees for whom Australia will provide protection”, I certainly hope that wish will not be granted to Mr. Hewitt. The types we have had dumped on us in recent years are certainly not suited to Australian society, and there are too many of them here now.

Continued…

...continued

Mr. Hewitt leaves his most outrageous claims for his final paragraph.

We don’t need “contributions” from refugees, if they have made any; there is nothing to “celebrate” by having them here, and Australia is certainly NOT better for the presence of refugees. Refugees are not “people of such ingenuity, strength and resilience” simply because they are refugees.

The last is a childish, patronising and totally false statement

I'm not writing to engage with the previous poster. But its said that more people read these posts than join in the forum. So I am simply stating that his views are not an accurate representation of "the rest of us". If I believed that these sentiments really were those shared by "most Australians" I would despair.

As for Australians having nothing in common with refugees from other countries? I believe that common humanity provides that link.

I was very disappointed with this article.

The first thing it did not mention is the prime factor behind the whole refugee problem, which is third world overpopulation. Unless this is addressed, all other efforts will be futile.

The second item not mentioned is that, in comparison with World War 2 and the Cold War periods, when virtually none of the refugees we took in would have had any sympathy with Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia, we face the problem today that a significant number of muslim refugees (or their Australian born children) have sympathies with some of the extremist groups in the Middle East, and come here purely for economic reasons. The terrorist attack on the London Underground where several of the terrorists were UK born children of muslim refugees granted asylum in the UK is a case in point.

As I understand the refugee convention, there is no level of comparative material deprivation which entitles any alien to remain here. In addition, the convention denies them the right to shop around, and requires them to seek asylum in the first country they arrive in, not the one that they think will suit them best. This seems to be ignored at the moment when determining whether they can stay here.

This problem needs serious attention, as the combination of overpopulation, peak oil, and measures to combat global warming will cause a significant decline world-wide in living standards over the coming decades, and all western countries will be inundated with people desperate to live there. Thank heavens we have a sea boundary. We look to our defence forces.

As an Indigenous person I was not consulted about the importation of the first refugees some 200 years ago and the current ones ( more poms and bloody New Zealanders ) and I am livid about it.

These people are not Australians and should not be in jobs that should be open to Australians ie Federal public service, commercials and my television. Australians are restricted in jobs and the ownership of property in Britian so why should we not apply the same program here. As for New Zealanders if I hear one more Canberra Manderian/ politician or info commercial talking with that annoying accent of there's I am going to have to hurt someone.( just joking)

Dear Yindin.....

*newsflash*... most of those early 'refugees' you speak of were not consulted EITHER.. they were thrown on leaky ships and sent out here to swim or sink...and some sank.

If you want to have a 'juicy target' go to Werribee Mansion, built by the Churnside family, see the INCREDIBLE (and I mean incrEDible) opulance they enjoyed from sheep farming business. The Werribee river was a kind of border for 2 aboriginal groups.

Your jaw will drop to see it. Polo field and all.

REFUGEES.. OR 5TH COLUMN? you decide.

If anyone ever had any doubts about where long term influxes of particular people groups will lead, here is one rather stark message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sMHmerZdiA

That one is a "must see". One of the key phrases is "We have an AGING white America, they are not making babies, all we have to do is survive, there are millions of us, the explOSION is in our population...

KEY FOCUS of this group is "immigration legislation" they will kick and scream against ANYthing which is likely to stop the further influx of illegals...and what is the end game? well.. you will have to listen to the horses mouth itself.. maybe its better that way..

Don't forget to look at the MAP they present.....

Want an 'agenda' ? here is a good one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc1XAQc8hS8&feature=related

"control of the United states by ballot box or armed revolution"

If anyone is so unbelievably naive as to think that such agenda's don't exist in ALL human beings.... they need a wake up call of the most extreme kind.

REFUGEES ?.. sure..

-controlled numbers
-controlled backgrounds (religion race)
-our terms..not theirs.

Mr Right

"Australia might have obligations to take UN processed refugees, but not illegal entrants, despite the blathering that there is no such thing as illegal 'refugees'."

You can dismiss information you don't want to hear as "blathering" if you like, Mr Right, but I will restate the facts anyway just to correct the record. Under International law anyone escaping persecution is entitled to apply for refugee asylum, and Australia as a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention has an obligation to assess their claim. They are not "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants", "illegal refugees", "illegal asylum seekers", "illegals", "aliens" or any other of these inflammatory terms coined very deliberately to exacerbate fear and resentment within the wider community.

Plerdsus

"In addition, the convention denies them the right to shop around, and requires them to seek asylum in the first country they arrive in, not the one that they think will suit them best."

There is no requirement in International law for refugees to seek asylum in the first country they come to. Refugees can't stay in Indonesia because it's not a signatory to the UN Convention.

Australia can afford to take in more refugees than its current intake. I understand the need to limit population growth. We're currently bringing in about 160 000 migrants a year, many of whom are skilled migrants poached from countries who can ill afford to lose them. This intake can be reduced and the uptake of refugees increased without incurring an increase in overall migration numbers.

Romany

"As for Australians having nothing in common with refugees from other countries? I believe that common humanity provides that link."

I agree. And hopefully initiatives like Oxfam's Refugee Realities continue to strengthen that link. Thanks Andrew for bringing it to our attention.

Those chanting the loudest "There is no such thing as illegal" when they howl and rant and disrupt and attack anyone seeking strong border control..... are....

in the next breath....

at the next rally....

Chanting "We will take over the USA by the ballot box or violent revolution"

Don't believe me.. believe those who are saying it.... (see youtube vids above)

Then ask.. "Is it a good thing that the Democrats rely so heavily on the Hispanic vote"?

Bronwyn,

To quote from the 1951 convention:

"Article 31. Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

In other words, the refugee must travel directly from the country of persecution to the country of refuge, without passing through any other countries."

The other thing that interests me in your post is your reference to international law. Who passed this law? By what right? When did the Australian people delegate any right to the United Nations or any other body to legislate on behalf of Australians? I think you will find that international law has no force or effect in Australia except as provided by commonwealth legislation.

You disparage the term "alien", even though it is mentioned in the convention. I gather that the current term used in the Migration Act is "unlawful non-citizen", but since unlawful means illegal and non-citizen means alien I don't think it makes much difference.

The convention entitles signatories to refuse asylum on the grounds of national security. It would seem to me that most of the muslim inhabitants of the middle east could justifiably be categorised as enemy aliens (as demonstrated by the participants in several terrorist events) and that our acceptance of refugees should be primarily be determined on this basis.

So I guess Boazy didn't visit the 'Refugee Realities' event in Melbourne. Given his very un-Christian disposition towards those who didn't have his accident of birth, it's hardly surprising I guess.

Mr Right - I live west of the Great Divide too, and even our little town has done its share of accepting refugees over the years, most recently in hosting a couple of dozen Sudanese who were employed at the local abattoir. Prior to that it was Bosnians, Vietnamese, Chileans - you name it. Over time all these people have either integrated and become members of the community, or moved on.

As for the rest of it, what Bronwyn said.

Country shopping is not included in the rules, Bronwyn. Like all bleeding hearts you rely on emotions, not logic or commonsense.

You can blather as much as you wish. We live in a democracy where the majority rules. Fortunately people like you are not in the majority; nor are most OLO posters who display sanctimonious shock and horror when logic and commonsense is aired by conservative posters.

Most blogs are loaded with wet lefties who like to cluster together so that they can hear what they want to hear, and they just love the opportunity to rubbish the few conservative people who put opposing views.

So, keep blathering in your artificial world. Reality comes from people who air their feelings and beliefs at elections times; hence we have the governments and policies wanted by the so-called silent majority.

Most sensible people can live with either major party in government because they hold similar views on major matters.

Tough luck for the likes of you, Bronwyn.

Bronwyn (continued),

You state that we should accept refugees (presumably ones that would be unable to obtain employment) instead of skilled migrants. My personal view is our population is already far too high, and all immigration should cease, as happened during the depression. Your attitude sees to be that the third world is entitled to double its population over the next few decades, and that we must accept as many of these people who wish to come here. This is a policy of despair.

No-one is happy about the catastrophic situation that much of the world will sink into over the coming decades, as food shortages interact with expanding population, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse carry out their corrections. Unfortunately Australia is not equipped to offer any meaningful solution to these problems.

A last point: Japan does not admit any refugees, but is never criticised. Why?

Plerdsus

”To quote from the 1951 convention: Article 31. Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

In other words, the refugee must travel directly from the country of persecution to the country of refuge, without passing through any other countries."

It doesn’t say that at all. It’s saying that signatories to the Convention, i.e. Australia, can’t penalise refugees who arrive without papers provided they present themselves to authorities on their arrival.

”The other thing that interests me in your post is your reference to international law. Who passed this law? By what right? When did the Australian people delegate any right to the United Nations or any other body to legislate on behalf of Australians? I think you will find that international law has no force or effect in Australia except as provided by commonwealth legislation.”

I’m referring to the same 1951 UN Refugee Convention you quoted from. It’s an internationally recognized agreement that Australia signed up to and to which we are still legally bound to this day.

“It would seem to me that most of the muslim inhabitants of the middle east could justifiably be categorised as enemy aliens (as demonstrated by the participants in several terrorist events) and that our acceptance of refugees should be primarily be determined on this basis.”

The majority of asylum seekers to Australia have been proven to be genuine refugees, Muslim or otherwise. It is incorrect to simplistically link Muslim refugees and terrorism, as you’ve done here. Most Muslims are moderates not extremists and no Muslim refugees in Australia have been found to be terrorists.

BRONWYN....

You quoted the convention..and then went into some denial of the english language mode.

on refugees who, coming DIRECTLY from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show GOOD CAUSE for their illegal entry or presence.

People who come here from Iraq, for example, who go through a number of countries on the way, preferrrrring Australia because they have relatives here.. are not coming DIRECTLY.....nor can they show 'GOOD CAUSE'.. becuase 'good' cause would be 'My life was threatened, so I ran...and here I am. meaning.. I ran to the FIRST place where I could obtain safety..and I'm sorry but Australia is NOT that.

So... they neither have

a)Come directly
b)Good cause.

Thus..the convention does NOT apply to them, and when people twist they convention and deny the plain meaning of the english language in order to get people here.. one can only assume that the motive is nothing more than a thinly disguised POLITICAL exercise in boosting up numbers of people who are then going to be pre-disposed to vote for those who championed their cause in getting here.

Of course, such base motives are always couched in 'bleeding heart sentimentality' as some kind of emotional blackmail against those who use common sense and history (not to mention an understanding of English) as their guide.

Or.. in my case, the argument is "Oh..ur such a baddddd Christian" is thrown around frequently.

So, in terms of the article "Refugee REALITIES" we have pretty well stiched that up.

The only 'real' refugees arriving here, would be those Christians from Irian Jaya and Poso Indonesia who are coming DIRectly as a result of being persecuted by the Jihadists...and for them, I have nothing but open and welcoming arms.

Plerdsus

I agree with you that Australia’s population is too high. I’ve already stated that I think our skilled migration program should be wound right back and I disagree totally with the likes of Peter Costello who thinks we need a baby boom.

I also agree that third world population is an enormous problem. I think developed countries should be doing a lot more to assist in establishing effective birth control in all these poorer places. Unfortunately, the power of the pope and misguided Catholic dogma in this area have negated a lot of the good work done by many medical and human rights agencies on the ground.

I agree that Australia is not big enough to really effect solutions to these problems. But as pointed out by Romany, I think our common humanity dictates that we must do what we can. I’m not talking about huge numbers. I’m talking about increasing our annual refugee intake from 8 000 to 20 000 and at the same time dramatically cutting back on skilled migration.

My view is that we’re all in this world together and that developed countries such as ourselves have a responsibility to do what they can. A lot of our wealth has come through exploiting the natural and increasingly the human resources of developing countries. We have to give as well as take. The two million refugees from Iraq for example, camped in overcrowded squalor on its borders, wouldn’t be there if their country hadn’t been illegally invaded by the US and its allies, of whom we are one. We owe them, as simple as that.

You mention Japan. Its per capita population is one of the highest in the world and it has no natural resources to speak of. No one seriously suggests that Japan has the capacity to resettle refugees in any number. My guess is that it assists through donating to aid programs in its region.

Mr Right

“Most blogs are loaded with wet lefties…”

Mud doesn’t stick to “wet lefties”, Mr Right. How about you engage with the issues rather than the name calling.

Many developing countries haven’t been able to provide basic freedoms, growth and decent living standards, but have developed enough for the emergence of a relatively well-educated middle class who watch the West on TV and the Internet and yearn for the opportunities they see there. Global criminal syndicates dealing in people smuggling target the aspirational middle classes of developing countries and attempt to bypass legal immigration controls by presenting illegal immigrants as asylum seekers in order to exploit compassion in liberal Western democracies such as Australia. They include genuine refugees in each cargo and often include children to ramp up the sympathy factor, so that the distinction between economic migrant and refugee has now unfortunately become very blurred.

Perhaps Oxfam could acknowledge that people attempt to leave dysfunctional third world societies for economic and social reasons as well as for political reasons, and that by posing as asylum seekers and refugees the 1951 Refugee Convention provides them with a chance to gain admittance to the West and all the advantages of living in first world countries.

Adrienne Millbank, an academic from Monash University, wrote a very informative paper entitled “DARK VICTORY OR CIRCUIT BREAKER: AUSTRALIA AND THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE SYSTEM POST TAMPA” detailing the disfunctionality of the international refugee system, which can be found at:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/view/issue/?volume=11&issue=