Anna Saulwick's article demonstrates that the old shameful order of mandatory detention in hell-holes is almost over. The proposed new values-driven policy is to be applauded for its return to national honour and dignified treatment of people in desperate straits.

Anna's throwaway line that the policy shift "tries to come to terms with a humane solution to a political problem. Or a political solution to a human problem" is worthy of more discussion than a mere play on words. You could argue that it doesn't really matter why a policy shift is introduced - the important thing is that things will be much better than they were.

For my part, I hope the motivation is a humanitarian one and not a political one because if it's the first it represents a real shift in the way politicians view people. The Howard/Ruddock/Andrews view was cynical and immoral - people were demonised and ill-treated because that won more votes than it lost. They didn't give a stuff about the documented harm that was done to asylum seekers, including and especially children.

I agree with Anna that "the scheme outlined by the Minister is far from perfect". For example, the legal fiction excising Australian territory from the migration zone is unjustifiable and should have been scrapped. Unauthorised arrivals have been shown to have a higher chance of being genuine refugees than those who arrive with a valid visa. Yet those who flee without valid documents will continue to be worst treated.

The reforms are welcome but do not yet go far enough to allow us as a nation to hold our heads up with a fully restored international reputation.

I agree with the humanitarian tone of the article and Spikey's post.

However, it should also be noted that problems also exist when refugees are let into Australia. Some Iraqis who recently came here have been reported as saying that the promises they were given by the authorities were not met and that they now have a harder and more uncomfortable life and are struggling to make ends meet.

So, getting rid of mandatory detention may, in some cases and to some degree, be getting rid of a cultural quarantine station in which people can slowly get accustomed to Australians and the way they think without being thrown headlong into the hurly-burly of Australian life. As more of these problems come to light, it may also dawn on society in general that there are cultural limits to the assimilation of migrants into Australian society. The follow-up question then is how to solve that problem. Obviously, the only one is to improve conditions in other countries so that people do not feel the need to flee in the first place. But, I imagine we are some way off finding a solution to that one.

The changes to mandatory detention are politically expedient.

Labor introduced MD in the 1990s and if the boats start coming in large numbers again or failed asylum seekers abscond in significant numbers (as happens in other western countries) it will be re-toughened.

The global trend is towards a crackdown on asylum seekers.

RobP,

It's a strange argument that you use: 'Some Iraqis' haven't found things to be as expected. So we'll lock up all new arrivals in detention centres (but we'll call them 'cultural quarantine stations' - that sounds nicer). We'll keep them out of the 'hurly-burly of Australian life' so that they 'can slowly get accustomed to Australians and the way they think'.

Please tell me how Australians think.

When you've done that, please tell me how locking up newcomers out of society (it will be Christmas Island now) enable them to get accustomed to how we think?

Your cultural (racial?) determinism does you no credit. 'As more of these problems [what problems are they exactly?] come to light, it may also dawn on society in general that there are cultural limits to the assimilation of migrants into Australian society.

Australia - except for Indigenous people - are all immigrants or the offspring of immigrants. So you must have a particular sub-set of people in mind?

Your solution, the 'only one' - to improve conditions in other countries so that people do not feel the need to flee in the first place - defies world history.

grn

The changes to mandatory detention may be 'politically expedient' but are they morally right?

<<... a cultural quarantine station in which people can slowly get accustomed to Australians and the way they think without being thrown headlong into the hurly-burly of Australian life.>>

But detention centres never operated like this. What you are suggesting would need yet another new system. A good halfway house, with appropriate support, and with connections to the refugees own ethnic group, can better achieve a gradual introduction into Australian life.

<<Unauthorised arrivals have been shown to have a higher chance of being genuine refugees than those who arrive with a valid visa. Yet those who flee without valid documents will continue to be worst treated.>>

Well said Spikey. Many people fail to realise that almost all of the boat arrivals were genuine refugees.

Australia’s mandatory detention policy was never shameful. It was absolutely necessary.

Mandatory detention in this country evolved from open asylum-seeker centres from which people absconded, to closed centres which they were required to stay but still absconded, to high-walls and razor wire.

We tried the gentle friendly approach. It failed.

It was also absolutely necessary that the deterrence factor be very strong, in the face of a massive build-up of intending arrivals in August 2001 at the time of the Tampa incident which indicated that the policy before that time was not working!

However, those whose documentation was in order and whose claims could easily be determined didn’t stay long in these centres.

Now that onshore asylum seekers have stopped coming, many would argue that it is time to relax the whole business a bit, just as long as it doesn’t lead to another lot of boats heading our way.

It could do, as people will quickly realise that if their documentation is in order, they don’t have criminal record and they are healthy, they will not be detained for long at all.

It would only take a small number of arrivals to flare this whole issue right up again. We don’t need that.

I would argue that it would have been better to have left the policy as it was and not risk it.

I wouldn’t have minded if all those still in detention at this point in time were given amnesty and just accepted as Australian citizens and a lid was put on the whole saga.

We should uphold the strongest border protection policy…..and put our efforts into refugee and humanitarian issues entirely through our offshore programs.

Here we go again!

All the usual pious re-statements of how immoral it is to deny asylum seekers another chance to live again and to treat them as human beings. The new arrivals are from the midle class, those who have the means to buy their way out of their debris and come with festering resentments that are re-fuelled when they dont do as well as promised or as they hoped.Disillusionment sets in and anger. Am I exaggerating?Take a look at the UK. The answers are all there.

These social engineers will bring this country to its knees and then they'll back off and leave it to others to pick up the pieces when its too late.

You want to see hyprocisy?
Take a look at the poor dispossessed who have suffered rape,whose loved ones have been butchered before their eyes, they have no money or secret political agendas and now they live in cardboard and hessian in compounds in the real asylum zones in Africa where they are victims of hunger and sickness and disease under humiliating circumstances.Why not try getting them over in controlled numbers? Id rather have our tax dollars used where it is so much more deserving and really needed.

Wouldnt the UK,Holland, Belgium, France and Germany and Denmark have loved to have had better controlling asylum seeker policies and offshore detention centres! They have openly lauded our previous handling of the issues many,many times after its been too late for them.They too were influenced by the same tribe of "do-gooders" who all sang from the same hymn books but who really did NO GOOD as later proved when it was too late.

Come on, Australia,it is too risky to offer cartre blanche to what will or could be our undoing.What's happened in the last ten years has been bad enough.
Want to help the real desperate asylum seekers? We know where they are.Well,I agree 100% but we know where to look for them and invite them in.Why dont the do-gooders advocate their rescue and rehabilitation? Or dont they matter?
These poor people must be invisible.

Spikey,

My argument goes something like this. I am putting the human side first. In detention centres, when people are there too long they get into an agitated state and it is bad for them. Agreed - time to get them out of detention.

AND, as recent events have shown, when some immigrants come here in too quick a fashion, they can also suffer problems, albeit of a different type, because they haven't acclimatised to Australia and its culture. (BTW, in this context, when I say what Australians "think", I mean the culture and the way Australians do things.) This can gradually be picked up in their interaction with Australian authorities, doctors, guards etc. The waiting also has the effect of gradually tempering some unrealistic expectations. So, some degree of quarantining is necessary and is actually to their benefit. I'm not hung up about detention per se - if what Veronika says about a new halfway house can be achieved, for example, then this would definitely be better than the detention model.

If you are a deep-sea diver and come up too quickly, you get the bends. It's the same with culture: if the differences between cultures are too great it's no good for the people involved, particularly the weaker party. In the physical world, there's always a limit. It's a pity there is a clash between the two points of view (ie the moral arguments for helping refugees and the laws of the physical world), but there is.

The diehard Left has an article of faith that you let all asylum seekers in without any restrictions. The diehard homophobes believe just as strongly that everything is cut and dried if migrants are totally locked out. It's an easy argument to make on both sides, but the reality is rarely at either end of the spectrum. One man's meat is another's poison and all that. And there's a whole lot more complexity in the middle. Reality is much more complicated than that put in showpiece arguments.

Australian immigration policy makers should prepare for more and more refugees following Rudd government failure to address Pacific nation food resource devastation. Collapse of traditional available fish suppy is a common denominator in Pacific region barter economy failure and imapact causing civil unrest. Economic policy in Australia that removed fish from the consumer price index might well hide real inflation but will not make social consequences disappear.

News media has already referred to economic refugees from the Pacific. The Rudd government has failed to notice need for real economic assistance for Pacific islanders and has instead managed an increase in Australian visa application fees of nearly 100 percent.

Without real aid in the Pacific, significant consequences must be expected. Ignorance of resource devastation and impact that is driving our neighbours into chronic poverty is no excuse.

Aus has both mandatory detention and extremely low levels of illegal immigration. Co incidence? I can see the boats getting ready now.

I agree that detention should be stopped, this should be by putting them on a plane immediately.

The last thing we need is more leeches on our social security system.

It is a pity this mandatory detention thing worked so well. It does look like it stopped the flow of unwanted immigrants. We take in a large number of immigrants per capita, more than we should if we want to limit the environmental damage we do to our land. We presumably we took a long hard headed look at those in need of help, and did the best we could. No doubt some think we made the wrong decisions in who or how many we can help. But really, how could it be otherwise? Places are limited. We can't help everybody, yet every desperate person we knock back is some sense a wrong decision. Sympathetic as I am to the plight of there queue jumpers, they are by-passing our good governance with their anarchy.

Yet, the way we treat them really sticks in my throat. The are locked up for years. They go insane in our detention centres. I would not put a dog through that ordeal. Like I said, its a pity it works.

But since its unavoidable, let them in, or kick them out - do it whatever is necessary, but do it quickly! We use our judicial systems to make the decision now. I am proud of it as it usually ends up with the right result. But it is also very, very slow. Usually that slowness doesn't really matter - it just costs money. But with asylum seekers it comes with a real human cost. Surely we can do better?

Is this what is being proposed? I can't tell from the article. It seems most points it makes are irrelevant. The only two questions that need to be answered are:
- Will it be effective in deterring illegal immigrants, and
- Will it process them more humanely.
The only clue the article gives is the Minister may be trying "to get some idea of how quickly asylum seekers can be processed". Well, it could not get any slower. Maybe next time someone writes about it they can give us some real meat to chew over.

RobP,
The author is talking about asylum seekers and I think you are refering to legitimate immigrants from Iraq. I do not recall any asylum seekers, from Irag, arriving here unauthorised of recent times. I do recall, last year the Government saying it would allow more christian immigrants from Iraq because they were being persecuted in Iraq. There is a vast difference between asylum seekers arriving unauthorised and bona fide migrants with visas arriving in normal fashion.

Anna and spikey are looking at this through rose coloured glasses or with hope rather than lodgic. Dispite the rethoric, little has changed. Asylum seekers will still be detained untill health and security checks are made and idenity is confirmed. This is what has taken place in the past. It is the untruths and further appeals that meant some were detained for long periods. Determination of status was done in a short period if correct information was given to officials. The asylum seekers were able to get to Indonesia, then paid smugglers far more than normal passage to Aus because they knew, for one reason or another, they would not get a tourist visa to Aus.
They destroyed identity documents and were coached in what to say to officials to make checking more difficult. If they were eventually accepted they then could get social security benefits.

I don't doubt that some will try it on again and when that happens how the process can be speeded up will be interesting. If the adults are detained what happens to their kids? Are they separated or are all with kids just let into the community. OK on Christmas Island, but here they would just go underground if they thought their application would not get up.

The Minister has a difficult task ahead. How to speed the process up and still be fair and maintain standards. One must not forget it was a Labor Government that introduced mandatory detention.

We will just have to wait and see what happens.

Dear Veronika.. duty first.. welcome to OLO.

now..work..

You said:

<Well said Spikey. Many people fail to realise that almost all of the boat arrivals were genuine refugees.>

Could you please put some framework around that agreement with Spikey?

Assuming you believe all or most of those arriving on our shores are genuine refugees.. does this mean you would accept all those who manage to arrive here.. simply because they are 'genuine'?

Could you indicate how you would control the numbers?

Do you believe that once 'word' get's out that now Australia is an easy touch.. that many more will now attempt to make it here?

May I ask by what criteria you would decide "Enough is enough"?

Would it be when 100/month.. 1000/month.. 10,000/month arrive here?

Banjo,

I was referring to a real-life story I saw on a current affairs show on the ABC about a week ago (can't remember now which one) where, I believe, 400 Iraqis that were interpreters for the ADF in Iraq were brought to Australia in order to save them from almost certain death once the Aussie troops left. I suppose you could call them both asylum seekers and legitimate arrivals.

The Iraqis' main complaint was that things in Australia were nothing like they were led to believe from the ADF. They were struggling to make ends meet and I suspect they felt rather isolated. I'm using this example to illustrate my point that bringing people here too quickly raises its own problems, which in turn leads me to suggest that a 'quarantine station' of some kind be created where such people are not just thrown in at the deep end. This could take the form of more humane detention for those that are deemed a danger to themselves or Australia or perhaps placing the "safe" ones in camps in the country where they can slowly acclimatise and perhaps help build up a particular industry.

I know my parents, who came here as migrants after WWII, were placed in Bonegilla and Benalla in Victoria for some years. They made pocket money picking fruit in the orchards as teenagers, until the family was allowed to leave the camp and make it to the big cities. What's wrong with reincarnating such a model?

People who disrespect Austrlaias immigration laws and try to enter Australia without proper authority deserve one of two things

1 to be turned back there and then

2 To be detained and returned once their origins have been ascertained.

No free-passes
No excuses

Wait in line with every other migrant.
Accept and respect the right of Australia to determine who is an acceptable entrant.

Australia is not a dustbin of humanity.

Australia has something worthy about it.

Whilst it does others will clamour to get here but as Polycarp rightly points out, how many people should we be expected to assimilate in any given time and of those, do we take everyone or only those of good character?

I do not want Australia to be invaded by a bunch of criminals, like Cuba did with its refugees into Florida.

A “genuine refugee” is one who has received an appropriate visa for entry, not someone who simply washed up on Aussie shores, having first gone through other intermediary nation-states, away from the point of danger.

Col Rouge

I salute your wisdom .

There HAS to come a time when someone calls a halt ..."Enough!" to this pandering to the social conscience of headline grabbers.The country will suffer the consequences.We are essentially a desert country that has severe water problems.On a map Australia looks massive and anyone would think that there is enough space to let millions of more immigrants.But ONLY the coastal fringe can support and sustain life and allow for a way of lfe that is our birthright.

The social engineers might equivocate and plead for only another million.Then next year the cry is renewed.There is NO CUT-OFF POINT for them. They have their own political agendas well-concealed.

And by the way if must take in more asylum seekers and refugees, then why not visit the refugee camps throughout Africa and take in only those who have gone through hell and lost loved ones and all their possessions.They are the REAL DESERVING ones.We've let in those who no sooner in when they prove most ungrateful and show the real reason why they are here.Their demands encroach on our laws and way of life.They seek to subvert the social-political order to forcibly implant their own.Their presence in Australia is now a constant source of threat that makes us very vulnerable.

socratease

It seems that those who are so up in arms about the detention centres
are not bothering to understand that asylum seekers can only be those
that fit the UN definition which roughly means someone who has fled
their country because they feared for their life or liberty.

They seem to be a minority of those arriving illegally.
Strictly speaking only asylum seekers who are Indonesians can really apply here.
Asylum seekers that have arrived in other safe countries first should
apply there for asylum. That was the rule, was it changed ?
Many seem to have traveled to Malaysia or Indonesia by air.
One report I saw showed that they had sold their house and car before
they left their home country. Hardly asylum seekers.

Those that arrive by boat are trying to escape detection and should
not be allowed to stay but should be supplied with fuel and food and
sent on their way. Thats what the Indonesians do.

RobP,
I did not see that TV show but I vaguely recall something about some Iraqis that worked for our ADF in Iraq and them migrating to Aus. If the ADF did not inform them properly about our society then Immigration should have, before issueing visas.

Your suggestion of a quarantine place or halfway house for migrants would not work. For example we get 160000 plus migrants per year so where would we house that many until they got used to our society and the cost would be enormous.

Over the years many migrants have said it is not like they were told here and I think we have been lax in this. Some have been shocked by the skimpy clothes worn at or near beaches, and revealing clothes in the normal street wear. Others by the fact that young women go out unaccompanied to work or education, for examples. There are many cultural matters that potential migrants should be made aware of BEFORE they commit to migrate here. I would even include pictures of scantily clad beachgoers, lone girls driving and nativity scene displays at shoping malls.

I understand information regarding this was being prepared, in various languages, to be given out to those applying for a visa. This was just prior to the last election and now that is under review along with the citizenship test. I await this review, particularly the information to be issued.

Bazz,
I understand you to be correct in what you say. Also we never had any forced detention. Detainees were free to leave the detention centres, and Australia, if they forewent the asylum claim.

I think we need to curtail the appeals process and inform applicants upfront that any attempts to mislead or incorrect information given will immediatly cancel the application. That would shorten the process.

Further, Idon't believe we strictly adhere to the UN criteria for asylum. I have a feeling that we let many in by bending the rules to accomadate them. 80% of boat people accepted as refugees seems very high.

"For example we get 160000 plus migrants per year so where would we house that many until they got used to our society and the cost would be enormous."

Banjo,

Most of the 160,000 at the moment are economic migrants, so many of those would - and do - slot in relatively easily in Australian life. So no "quarantine assistance" would be required for them.

For others, though, particularly people that come from an urban or tribal background, they can add quite a lot as a group if they are put in a community which is more isolated from the mainstream - say in a country town. There have been examples where Afghans have worked in the meatworks industry in the country and filled an employment hole there and are good workers to boot.

The idea can be made to work, if there is a "horses for courses" approach taken. It just means working out what people are best at and then handling them more intelligently than we do at the moment.

RobP,
From what you say about treating people properly it sounds like you have the makings of a decent PM.

JF Aus,

Unfortunately, I've got my limitations and am not - and would probably never be - able to be a professional politician.

However, I'm happy to provide ideas that might help, and insights that reflect, the ordinary person. I'm pretty sure more than a few pollies read this site, so I'm hoping they'll be able to put the better ideas into practice.

RobP,

I am likewise. Do our best. Hopefully there are some decent people out there that will see through the lies and deceit and political spin.

If we need any more migrants,as we surely do, then why not take them from Africa? I have met with and spoken to many from different parts of Africa,north,south east and west, and they have all fitted in superbly and are doing well.They all spoeak English and are literate and educated.They dress immacutely,the women more than the men,really care for their kids, and are so glad to be here,they make no impossible and inimical demands on our culture which is so much like theirs.They mix in with us so well,the girls marry Aussie blokes and their men are often seen arm in arm with white girls. Their dress code is identically ours. So what is the problem?
I stress that we should be taking more from the refugee camps all over Africa and elsewhere.After health checks and a period of quarantine they should be accepted openly and warmly into our communities.
Lets have NO MORE migrants who live in closed communities and who hate us and demand that their customs and laws be accepted as ours.No more separate schools and separate curricula.
We have had a gut full of exclusivity they practice in OUR COUNTRY. They are not in their OWN COUNTRY.

socratease

socratease

<<Lets have NO MORE migrants who live in closed communities and who hate us and demand that their customs and laws be accepted as ours.No more separate schools and separate curricula. We have had a gut full of exclusivity they practice in OUR COUNTRY.>>

Goody! No more Scotch College. No more Kings School.

While you're at, let's abolish the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Club? Sell off the assets of the Melbourne Club and the Australia Club.

As you quite righty point out Soc, we've had a gut full of exclusivity in OUR COUNTRY.

Spikey
Thanks for your comments. Your naivete is touching,to say the least.All I say in reply,Lets hope history never proves me right.If it does i hope you and others like you run for cover and are never heard from again except to sy Mea culpa.

socratease

socratease,

I'm in about 50:50 agreement with what you say.

As for Africans and fitting in with our culture, I caught an overnight bus a couple of months ago and it was full of people from all kinds of racial backgrounds. An African guy, who was sitting across the aisle from me, was enthusiastically chatting all evening on his mobile phone. I don't know how many calls he made, but it was lots. Now, that was OK by me before midnight. However, after a coffee stop, he was at it again until after 1am when all the lights were out and people were getting some shuteye. I eventually told him to pipe down and to his credit, although he looked a bit shocked, he politely did, but only after he finished his call which was about 10 minutes later. It was clear he didn't have the slightest idea there was a problem.

While this is a relatively small point, it illustrates that cultures are different to the point of causing discomfort if there's too much intermixing.

As for migrants (eg Muslims) having their own schools etc and hating Australians, that's a sweeping comment. I'm sure there are only a few Muslims who genuinely hate Australians. If it wasn't for the beard, the turban and the obvious cultural idiosyncrasies, how would you tell the difference between the hardline Muslims and, as Spikey says, their counterparts in the HR Nicholls society (who hate ordinary people in all societies)? The most dangerous enemy, after all, is the one you do NOT notice because they're already part of the landscape.

Anyway, if migrants cannot be reconciled to the Australian way of life, I think it's probably inevitable that they will go back to their home countries once free of violence etc. Until that point, I think they should be welcome to do whatever they like here as long as they are law abiding and their presence does not, in an overall way, hinder our society. Being separate is not a crime, but over a period of time, I concede, it may become a problem.

socratease

So the exclusivity that concerns you is not being locked out of affluent white Australian enclaves, just those 'others' that shouldn't be allowed? You only notice difference and being 'excluded' when it is people from a different ethnic background?

RobP,

You've never been disturbed by a white Australian using their mobile? Funny about that. An example of 'Africans' 'not fitting in with our culture'? I would have thought exactly the opposite. The man concerned was fitting in perfectly. Look around.

I think you like many others assume an 'Australian way of life' that is fixed and agreed upon by everyone. The truth is our way of life is complex and diverse. It is always under negotiation and ever changing.

Spikey,

I am getting a bit sick of your implied and predictable "you are a racist" snipe. What I was seeing is how the lack of cultural compatibility between people causes problems. Get it? Because, all this does is rub people up the wrong way when all they are doing is what comes naturally.

I do see lots of Australians using mobiles, but not in close proximity to each other after 1am on a bus when they're trying to get to sleep. Do you? And if a passenger was to speak out in such circumstances most Westerners would be more than a little embarrassed and put a stop to the call straight away. (Westerners who don't are the arrogant who think they can do as they please. And, yes, those ones do bother me. But at least even they would have known they were doing the wrong thing, while it was clear that the African guy didn't. There's a big difference.)

So, let me get this right, your attitude is to be so accommodating that things that have worked for us in our country should be overturned because we want to be extra nice to people, just because they are extra different to us? Talk about bending over backwards.

Your attitude is to find whatever excuse you can to overturn whatever is left that's any good from the conservative viewpoint. That's wrong.

Spikey,I normally ignore stupid comments but I think you need to be reminded that in our communities there are organisations that charge more than other similar organisations, like health clubs, insurances and schools but that doesnt open up the problem with exclusivity in the sense that we are using it but you alone arent aware of. I cannot attend Kings College but that is only because I cannot afford to.I cannot join the Masons because they have a historical charter that gives them a right to admit who they want. We dont want madrassas like they have in Pakistan where enrollment is exclusively religious and meant for Muslims ONLY though the aims have been discovered to be anything but religious unless killing "kaffurs" is a religious obligation for which there is extensive education and training. In Perth we had to close down acollege for Muslim women most of whom were Sudanese and Somali refugees who were either orphans or very poor.That seems to be laudable but the authorities broke their agreement and were teaching only religion and religiously associated subjects like social and political actions.Tracts dealing with violent jihad were said to have been planted on them and which they knew nothing about.Yeah!! Do you think your Kings College students enjoy the same upbringing or the HR Nicholl Society have a similar set-up for its adult members? Not even you would be stupid enough to make such claims.

socratease

RobP,

I don't accuse you of being racist. That's your own interpretation - and your own word. What I do say is that you cannot in all reason make a generalisation about a whole group of people based on one single experience with one person who may or may not be typical of that group.

You introduced your bus anecdote with this rubric: "As for Africans and fitting in with our culture". Surely you were making a claim about the whole group 'Africans'? (A huge place Africa.)

You ended your anecdote with the claim: "it illustrates that cultures are different to the point of causing discomfort if there's too much intermixing." On the basis of one encounter on a bus with one 'African'.

Yet you are perfectly capable of seeing your own fallacy when it is perpetrated by others. In your next sentence you tell socratease: "As for migrants (eg Muslims) having their own schools etc and hating Australians, that's a sweeping comment."

How would you ever explain matters if a 'white Australian' behaved on a bus the way your 'African' did? Would he be just a rude b? Or would you be able to make a conclusion about 'white Australians'?

Talking of socratease, he just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand his own inconsistency. He's totally opposed to exclusive practices when they are introduced by people of a certain type but accepts and even makes makes excuses for the exclusive practices of other types of people.

He's unhappy to be excluded by some groups but quite content to be excluded by others - because he can't afford to belong or because they have 'an historic charter'.

He accuses me of not understanding exclusiveness "in the sense that we [sic] are using it".

The uncomfortable fact is that I fully understand who he wants to exclude from having exclusive practices.

Spikey,

Racist was never my word. You first implied it here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7727#120566.

Anyway, we can keep arguing about this. The bottom line is that too much mixing of cultures is wrong, whether it's between us and people from Africa, the Middle East or the Hell's Angel who lives next door. After a while we all have our senses dulled, and our own cultures attenuated, by the constant infusion of new cultures.

At some point, as individuals' well of resistance starts to wear thin, they will recognise the cultural mismatch and do what's required to put their own culture back on an even keel.

RobP,

You introduced the word 'racist' by saying that I implied it. Dumb eh?

Anyway, for you << The bottom line is that too much mixing of cultures is wrong, whether it's between us and people from Africa, the Middle East or the Hell's Angel who lives next door. After a while we all have our senses dulled, and our own cultures attenuated, by the constant infusion of new cultures.>>

So where's the pure standard? Where can we find it? Let's look at what we used to call Mother England. What is a Briton?

Ice Age: early humans crossed the land bridge from Europe - Lower Paleolithic hunters, Neanderthals, and homo sapiens.

2500-1800 BC: Later Neolithic immigrants

7-6th Centuries BC: Picts from northern Europe

400 BC: Celts

2nd Century BC: Belgae from Picardy

55 BC-4th Century AD: Romans

c340 AD: Scots (from Ireland)

late 4th Century onwards: Saxons

8th Century onwards: Vikings and Danes

1066 onwards: French - Normans

I suppose you could argue that the modern nation emerged with the Tudors but even that's not so simple with continuous infusions into the ruling cartel of Germans, Greek etc. And immigrants from many parts of the world. Then the old British Empire struck back - and Enoch Powell and the jackboots tried to make a stand for racial purity!.

So in what sense can you argue that "too much mixing of cultures is wrong"?

Clearly immigration has played a significant part in the making of Britain for many centuries. Those who advocate violence in order to keep Britain culturally pure are talking through their hats and have no understanding of history.

Now if you're still not convinced that most modern nations are made of a whole lot of cultural and ethnic mixes, take a quick look at the USA?... Go on, don't be afraid. You might learn something of value.

Spikey,

Very smart. There is no pure standard as you well know. Your argument is simply a relativistic one - ie seeing as though we've had racial mixing for so many centuries and we still haven't become extinct or anything, ergo racial mixing must be OK.

BTW, I'm racist and I'm not dumb.

But you are a smarty pants.

RobP

Forget the name calling which is not helpful. Stay with the issue.

In the light of the facts on mass immigration over the centuries, in what sense can you argue that "too much mixing of cultures is wrong"

Spikey,

OK, If you're prepared to be serious.

First let me correct a howler. What I meant to say was:

"BTW, I'm NOT racist and I'm not dumb."

-- -- -- -- --
>>In the light of the facts on mass immigration over the centuries, in what sense can you argue that "too much mixing of cultures is wrong"<<

To the extent that people of different cultures invade each other's (inner and outer) space and where there's discord between them. There are sufficient differences between cultures where, if people live too close together, they cause problems for each other. The biggest example of which is mixed-race marriages IMO.

On the "mass immigration over the centuries" bit, it's all very well flicking through a book and seeing how harmonious things look on the surface of a multicultural society, but this scene has, over the centuries, been preceded by lots of bad events (eg killing on the battlefield, suspicions, inter-generational hatreds, etc). It's only after a period of time that people have learned that staying separate/cellular within society is the only way to make it (multiculturalism) work.

Also, a picture-perfect view of the world hides the fact that putting people together that are very different causes extreme effects on some people (particularly those in minorities) such as isolation, humiliation, etc. I wouldn't mind betting there are plenty of people from cultural minorities in Australia right now sitting at home scared to fit in with mainstream society for one reason or another.

Spikey's historical over-view of how multi-cultural societies evolve is very clearly and cleverly put and I applaud him for it.Each stage of cultural confrontation and subsequent mix was accompanied by pain on the battlefield invariably and its aftermath of cultural and racial discrimination during assimilation and sublimation but over a period of time things settled down and the newly emergent society was stronger and richer.

Nature teaches that every stage of growth is accompanied by growing pains.Ofcourse there's a lot of nostalgia and yearnings for the past on both sides.In the process of historical growth through assimilation, racial purity is the first casualty.So what? I am yet to believe that it, racial purity is a good thing. The concept,like religion, has led to most of the world's sufferings and injustices.

socratease

Since we are concerned about mass immigration to this country let me ask: does anyone have a fixed number beyond which we risk becoming another country altogether with an ethnic mix that isnt to our advantage?
Should we even be thinking of "to our ADVANTAGE"? Is that an unreasonable concept bordering on the racist?

Why I ask that is looking at the problem that Israel has.It is home to those Arabs who didnt join the Arab diaspora but after 1947 decided that they would risk all by choosing to stay in Israel albeit as a community that was despised and regarded with hostility especially after the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian wars.They even have the right to vote.They have representatives in the Knesset even if they have only token representation.

The Israelis know it is only a matter of time for the fecung Arab Israelis outnumber the Israelis.This is going to re-define Israeli democracy because to preserve their Israeli identity these Arabs are going to have to be disenfranchised.As it is they are being pushed back year after year into resuced Arab land where they have autonomy.This is creating a powderkeg as the density of Arab population grows each year. Each Arab family has an average of 4 kids.The Israelis reached ZPG many years ago and have to depend on keeping up nubbers by the diaspora having to emigrate to Israel.

The story is palpably evident in Belgium Holland and the UK.Is it going to be repeated in Austyralia and New Zealand?
socratease

Anna Saulwick states:

"The Opposition has taken a familiar line. Senator Chris Ellison, the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, described the move as a knee-jerk reaction, which sends the message that Australia has softened its border protection. If we are seeing any kind of jerk reaction, however, we are seeing it from the Opposition themselves. They have responded to a great moral challenge by restating old arguments, which are unsupported by any research, no longer resonate with the public, and fracture their own party ranks."

On the contary, the arguements still resonate strongly with the public,as shown in a very recent poll indicating that most think the refugee level is too high:

Michelle Grattan
August 5, 2008 The Age

A MAJORITY of Australians think the country is taking too many refugees, according to an Essential Research poll.

The poll — which comes in the wake of the Government's announcement last week that it was liberalising mandatory detention policy — also found Australians still retain a hardline attitude towards asylum seekers.

Less than a quarter of respondents (24%) said past policy on asylum seekers had been too tough, while 62% said it had been right or not tough enough.

Those in higher income brackets were more likely to believe the policy had been too tough; those on lower incomes were more inclined to believe it was not tough enough.

Under the Rudd Government's changes to detention policy, unauthorised arrivals will be held for a limited period for identity, health and security checks, but beyond that people will only be detained if they present a risk to the community or have repeatedly absconded.

In the online poll of 1013, people were asked about the increase in Australia's refugee intake to 13,500 annually: 52% said this was too large; a quarter said it was about right; and 6% said it was too small.

Refugee intake by even 20,000 a year isnt too much as long as we know who it is who will share our cultural heritage and will not be inimical to our status as a secular democracy.
Be choosy!Yeah!!
This means being discriminatory ...so what?
It is for our own protection and ultimately for our own survival as the Australia we love and have a duty to preserve.

socratease

franklin

So an opinion poll found that most Australians polled think Australia is taking too many refugees?

What did you expect? After a decade and more of government manipulation of public opinion and suppression of the facts about refugees:

* lies that demonised 'boat people' (most unauthorisd refugees arrive by air), 'queue jumpers' (when there weren't any queues to join), 'illegals' (when asylum seekers were perfectly entitled under international law to seek asylum), 'children overboard' (when the whole story plus faked photos was cooked up for an impending election) ;

* mandatory, and in some cases indefinite, detention of people including young children who had done nothing wrong but who were portrayed as criminals;

* a supine media that hadn't the stomach for investigative journalism and were content to run Government media releases as 'news';

* the banning of lawyers and refugee advocates from entering detention centres and orders from the very top that no refugees' stories were to be humanised and personalised but must be seen as just a large threatening mass;

* no moral leadership, but instead the immoral exploitation of detention of innocent people to 'deter others'

There was also a time when the majority of Australians wanted Australia to keep the death penalty, 'keep' Australia white (it never was), keep the disabled in sheltered workshops, and ban women from public bars.

Thankfully politicians and other community leaders showed leadership on these moral issues and brought the public around to a more enlightened position. The late Peter Andren, the Independent member for Calare had to guts to confront the many rednecks in his electorate on refugee issues. Starting in a marginal seat, in successive elections he gradually built up a very safe seat by being honest and informing his voters as to why he took a moral rather than a cynical populist position.

Oh for more Peter Andrens in our Parliament!

Spikey
in the 1980's both Assad of Syria and King Hassan of Jordan, both neighbours of Palestine, tried the humane approach to the problem,not the POLITICAL one. Guess what happened?
If you dont know then perhaps you shouldnt be talking about things about which you know nothing.
There were rebellions in both countries and those seeking refuge from tyranny soon became terrorists.Both uprisings were put down with brutal force. The Muslim Brotherhood in northern Syria were wiped out over 10,000 of them whilst the Hashemite bedouin tribesmen saved their Kingdom.Now these countries grant only 3 month visas to refugees. As do Malaysia and Indonesia.And these are Muslim countries!We give them all permanent residence.
Before Andrew again claims I hate them all let me say I strongly believe that the genuine refugees who are willing to live peacefully in our SECULAR democracy are very welcome. I'll be glad to be the first to welcome them. But tell me,how careful were we in vetting Ben Brikka and those who conspired to massacre the Australians who went to the AFL finals in Melbourne and who are now standing trial?Once found guilty they will probably be required to do 100 hrs community service and undergo re-education...till the next time!

Andrew will hate me saying this but we need to enforce stricter monitoring without willy-nilly letting them all settle raise families and then years later prosecuting them. These jihardists need to succeed only once in evading detection before they kill thousands of us.

Go on,Andy, call me a raving racist again.Your'e a joke.

socratease

Spikey opines:

“There was also a time when the majority of Australians wanted Australia to keep the death penalty, 'keep' Australia white (it never was), keep the disabled in sheltered workshops, and ban women from public bars.Thankfully politicians and other community leaders showed leadership on these moral issues and brought the public around to a more enlightened position.”

It is inherently flawed and misleading to argue moral equivalence between the death penalty issue etc and the asylum seeker issue as they are totally separate issues. The asylum seeker issue wasn’t back and white, it was shades of gray, as is every major issue. A reasoned and logically sound moral argument could equally be made against Australia's humanitarian refugee resettlement program being held captive to people smugglers and secondary movement asylum seekers.

Spikey opines:

“After a decade and more of government manipulation of public opinion and suppression of the facts about refugees:”

In 2006 the Swiss electorate voted overwhelmingly in favour of regulations to prevent abuses of the asylum system. Was that a case of manipulation and suppression of facts by the Swiss government or merely the electorate voicing its opinion. In reality,the Swiss Electorate seems to be in agreement with the Australian electorate on the asylum seeker issue.

Swiss Asylum, Immigration Laws Ratified
The Associated Press
Sunday, September 24, 2006; 12:32 PM

Swiss voters ratified new asylum and immigration laws Sunday making it more difficult for refugees to receive assistance. More than 67 percent voted in favor of the stricter rules on asylum, originally approved by the Swiss government in December. The proposal was overwhelmingly accepted in all of Switzerland's 26 cantons, according to results released by the federal government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400296.html

The international refugee system has become very dysfunctional and the distinction between economic migrants and refugees has now unfortunately become very blurred.

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 dysfunctionality of the international refugee system, which can be downloaded from:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/view/issue/?volume=11&issue=2