While the Pope continues to refuse to endorse the rights of women, especially in relation to education and the ability to control their own fertility without coercion, there is indeed reason for serious concern.
While an adviser for the Australian Conservation Foundation, our premier environmental organization, deliberately turns a blind eye to the shattered lives, the innocent children with their childhood stripped away due to refusal of those rights in over-stressed countries – what to say? Other than that our international reputation as a country of decency and a fair go for all is not worth a pinch of rabbit dung

The writer at least acknowledges Australia's "inhumane" treatment of our refugees and the "apartheid-like" treatment of the indigenous. Our third great social inequity is so hidden that it doesn't even rate a mention: our failure to provide for those most vulnerable in our society, the intellectually disabled. While we continue to make services available for one in six of these desperately needy people, while we continue to allow our aged to care for our disabled, we can be certain that our international reputation in this sector, at least, is in tatters and that any sense of decency and fair go is a delusion.

there is this to be said for being a subject, rather than a citizen:

it's not your fault. whatever is done by the government, it's not your fault- because they don't ask you.

incidentally, if you would get in the habit of referring to the government as the government, rather than 'australia', your thinking in politics would be less murky, and your writing more convincing.

No useful discussion on the rights of people seeking to immigrate to this country, or to Europe, should begin without first acknowledging how immigration affects the rights of people already living here, our environment and our long term sustainability.

Those whose rights have not been considered have been the housing stressed who have seen the cost of housing rocket to the stratosphere. This was the effect both anticipated and welcomed by the property lobby (For more information, see my article "Brisbane's housing unaffordability crisis spun by ABC to promote property lobby interests" at http://candobetter.org/node/610)

My neighbour who rented half a house next door had her life made miserable as real estate agents marched in to her house almost at will over a period of six months to show prospective buyers the house they wished to purchase. After it was bought, the rent was jacked up and, not being able to afford it, she had to move. Last time I saw her she was in tears. This almost certainly would not have happened if the demand for housing had not risen so much as a consequence of population growth.

99% of refugee advocates have adamantly refused to consider how immigration affects the rights of existing inhabitants, such as my neighbour for at least the last 2 decades. This has added enormously to the public confusion and has served as a smokescreen to selfish vested interests who have successfully lobbied and achieve high immigration from the Hawke/Keating Labor governments, the Howard Government and, now the Rudd Government.

Why has the author made no reference to the fact that immigration to Australia has as a result of a decision announced by Immigration Minister Evans higher than it has ever been (well over 300,000)?

It is an outrage that an apparent advocate for environmentally destructive immigration is an advisor to the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The author is barely more honest than the virulently anti-democratic and pro-immigration Murdoch newsmedia (see http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/paulkelly/index.php/theaustralian/comments/open_door)of 17 May 2008 or "Workers Welcome" http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23705636-25209,00.html).

For some more honest, balanced and factual articles about the immigration question, please visit http://candobetter.org/immigration

daggett

You are dead wrong on two matters and misleading on a third.

1. Increases in housing costs are never the result of one single factor. However, if one single factor is what you seek, try the one-sided rules on negative gearing.

2. Immigration to Australia is nowhere near the figure you cite - 300,000.

You can only get to 300,000 by some creative counting including temporary visa holders and overseas students (which is what some dishonest commentators have been doing).

The actual projected figures are: 133,500 in the permanent migration stream and 56,500 in the family stream.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23714642-421,00.html
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2008-05-13/australia/government-increases-skilled-migration-places.htm

In addition, you have totally overlooked the departure rate. Permanent departures from Australia in 2006-07 amounted to 72,103 (similar figure for the past few years) and over half of these were born in Australia.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/pdf/emigration_0607.pdf

So 133,500 + 56,500 - (say) 70,000 = net growth of 120,000.

3. I visited the website you recommended for "some more honest, balanced and factual articles about the immigration question" and found it earnest and well-meaning; but lacking in both factual content and authority.
http://candobetter.org/immigration

Alas!the world is learning the sad lessons of history and as one wise man once said," Those who dont learn from history are bound to repeat their mistakes."
Yes.I remember the world calling John Howard a racist.Some Australians joined inthe chorus,too.
Today, the UK, Belgium Holland,Germany Italy Spain and a good fewothers are now realising that Howard was man of wisdom and they regret massively that they qwere too cowardly to follow his policies.

History has a way of biting you on the bum when you deserve it.

socratease

The ALP introduced Mandatory Detention during the Keating years didn't it - so shouldn't you take it a bit easier on poor old JohnW - dear me he gets blamed for everything, I didn't particularly like him, but dislike him continually being used to obscure the facts and truth about a lot of what has happened.

The current ALP government can dismantle the detention centres because the policy worked, the boats stopped. The people smugglers got rounded up and jailed not the way you describe it - you seem to be saying because of the policies we got people smugglers, that's twisting the facts somewhat.

Europe is adopting the policies because they worked. Not everyone agrees there should be universal open borders as you seem to be encouraging. How are you doing living in Berlin convincing the Europeans of your fine ideas?

Easy on the "aparthied-like treatment" as well, you seem to be saying during the previous Hawke/Keating years things were better, it only got bad during the Howard years? I don't think so - if anything their lack of activity and then the following government led to the miserable situation we have now where we have children in daily danger while bleeding hearts attend endless meetings about the best way to distribute the government's bounty and have more meetings and maybe a conference or two.

Mandatory detention had absolutely nothing to do with ‘migrants’ and this author displays his ignorance by referring to the: “…new approach that will see migrants that pose no security threat released into the community.”

Migrants are never detained because they are accepted via applications made legally overseas. Illegal entrants and visa over stayers were the only people detained.
It is only commonsense that Europe should be tightening up on illegal arrivals; they always envied Australia’s policy and it is just now, when illegals and people totally opposed to the democracy of the countries they enter illegally have caused so many problems for Europe. They have decided to stand up to the loony left.

If Rudd the Dud lasts more than one term, he will find that he is forced to return to a mandatory detention policy after illegals have recommenced taking advantage of an Australia which was already too weak, even with the Coalition/ALP bipartisan policy.
The only policy for illegal arrivals is an immediate return trip to their countries of origin; and the drowning of illegals during a journey of their own undertaking has nothing at all to do with any country’s policies on whom they will accept or invite to their shores. Nor has the supposed “human misery” the author wrongly assigns to “Howard era immigrations policies” anything to do with anyone but the illegals themselves. The Howard Government accepted so-called refugees dealt with under United Nations criteria.

When left-leaning Europe and, especially France, start toughening up, their actions should surely indicate to even the most intellectually and practically challenged, that the total nonsense of uncontrolled people movement has gone too far. And our local dunderheads need to contemplate just how far off the planet is our new Government.

...continued

..continued

Do “…many ordinary Australians now look back in disbelief that we allowed such inhumane treatment to be meted out on people who were simply in search of a better life”? - if so, how many really think that Australia’s policy was “inhumane”? Very few people with any sense of reality and sovereign rights, or an understanding of what inhumane treatment really is, could possibly nurture such ridiculous thoughts.

Obviously, James Norman is one of the naifs. His contention that “such policies simply don’t work” is totally wrong. They certainly worked for Australia and put a stop to boatloads of uninvited people arriving. And, we are yet to see the consequences of Rudd’s folly when weather conditions favour people smugglers.

Before he is finished, Norman goes back to what he calls a “more sensible immigration system”. As far as I am aware, the current Government’s changes made no difference at all to what Australians regard as their legitimate immigration system.

A person who can’t tell the difference between normal, controlled immigration and border protection is not a person to be listened to.

Spikey,

You need to appreciate that we don't have the unlimited amount of space or time necessary to explain every possible aspect of these questions.

I never claimed that immigration was the only driver of increasing housing prices. Obviously negative gearing makes an already appalling situation worse as does the privatisation of Australia's housing system, but no amount of reforms are going to fix this if Australia's immgration rate is not drastically reduced.

What else accounts for the astronomical rise in commercial and residential rents in South East Queensland in recent years, if not record high interstate immigration actively encouraged by both the Queensland and Federal Governments? Read this comment:

http://candobetter.org/node/446#comment-1094
Rent Gouging

"Does anyone really need proof that rent gouging exists?
Well I have two examples...I used to live in Eagleby on
Brisbane's (far) southside (near Beenleigh), the 2 bedroom
flat I rented in 2002 was $95 a week, it now rents for $230
a week.

"I had a friend that lived in units in Eagleby that used to
be leased by a church group and rented out to low income
earners for $120 a week. In April 2007 the owner put them
on the market and the real estate evicted all the tenants.
Now they rent for $240 a week.... a $120 increase in 12
months? If that's not gouging I don't know what is."

I wasn't disregarding emigration. I was simply referring to Australia's record high immigration figures, which has exceeded the already record-high immigration rate that John Howard deceitfully ratcheted up behind our backs. If we add natural increases to net migration, we find in Cell Data1:M117 in a (somewhat confusingly formatted) ABS spreadsheet labelled "TABLE 1." at http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs%40.nsf/DetailsPage/3101.0Dec%202007
the Estimated Residential Population (ERP) increase from January 2007 until December 2007 to have been 331,900. Unless Evans quickly changes his policy, the figure will be even higher this year. To deliberately increase our population to this extent in these circumstances criminally reckless in my view.

Europe is a much more tightly knit place with greater numbers of people than Australia. Fair play to countries that make intending freeloading residents jump hoops. I think it's a bit rich to let freeloaders come here, or anywhere, because they lack the intestinal fortitude and community spirit to stand against oppressive behaviour in their own countries. If they can't pay, stay away! Simple!
Most of the time these freeloaders ensconce themselves in enclaves and refuse to benefit anyone other than themselves and their own race while usually rorting the welfare system. I laugh in the face of anyone who says otherwise!
Good move by the EU and tough cookies if some weak willed reffos drown floating crappy boats across inclement waters. Proper planning prevents piss poor performance after all, or is that a bit too "western white man" for you do-gooders out there.
Go hard, EU! Make the bastards think real hard about doing the right thing instead of the easy thing, that is, sorting out their own shite piles instead of getting others to bail them out.
My guess is some of you are going to be upset. GOOD! Am I bovvered?...Am I?...Nuh.

This immigration debate is great fun, but I must admit to being a bit slow. If you go back to basic books on human behaviour, you find the principle of territoriality, and that entry by an alien into a country without leave constitutes invasion, and needs to be treated accordingly.

We were told this about the arrival of the First Fleet, except in this case they were landing on British territory, as Captain Cook had taken possession of the east coast of Australia in 1770.

Somehow, aliens (that is, people who are not citizens of a country), seem to have acquired the right to travel to any country they wish, especially if they are favoured by the lunatic left.

How? Were the people consulted? I think the lunatic left is up to one of its old marxist tricks again, and think they can change human nature, but unfortunately, as anyone with any knowledge of the animal kingdom would know, this instinct is many millions of years old, and is not about to change any eon soon.

Trying to alter people's primal instincts is not recommended anywhere near a ballot box, as it can have unfortunate results, as Kim Beazley found out in 2001.

Unfortunately, we have a political lobby comprising the real estate industry, big business, the media, and the loony left, who want unrestricted immigration, and who deprecate those opposing it as racist, a perjorative term similar to un-australian. I think these are the same people who think interest rates should be zero, or preferably negative.

Think what it is going to be like in 20 or 30 years time, when the world population is several billion more, and we are getting the navy to use the refugee boats for target practice?

It should be a fun century.

What a dopey bloody article.

'Australia exports its draconian immigration system'

No it didn't. Europe adopted Australia's policy... because it worked.

When was the last leaky boat full of queue jumping illegal immigrants sighted off Australia's coastline?

Come on be fair dinkum and then ... well tell us why they've stopped.

So the Europeans have finally woken up to the fact real and effective action is needed to stop such criminality.

But of course the biased author with his tired and jaded ideas won't have a bar of that ... it's far too obvious and simple to be true.

Oh goody, another member of the Chardonnay left is here to tell us how wonderful multiculturalism is (all those fab restaurants, doncha know) and berate us about the guilt trip these morons are into. Immigration levels in this country are simply too high, we don't have the arable land (fast disappearing under concrete, tarmac and lawns) nor the water to support the riduclous levels foisted on us by successive governments. I'm no fan of Johnny H, but he did right as far as illegal immigrants are concerned (although I have to say, some of the decisions took forever, regarding illegals' status, not helped by our legal system). As many have pointed out, the supply of illegals dried up. Nobody forced these people into leaky boats- it was the thought of an easy ride at the other end that did it. Similar situation in Europe. Finally they've woken up, probably too late though- their countries and cultures have been riddled from within.

Disabuse me of this silly notion if possible, but I've always thought that negative gearing increased the number of properties available for rent? One of the reasons Keating did a turnabout when he thought to get rid of it (decreased rental property numbers).

I get mighty peeved when I return to the city/suburb of my birth/childhood and see migrants with no visible means of support (i.e. they don't work) living in houses I can't possibly afford despite receiving a fairly decent wage. On top of that, I get the looks from the inhabitants of some of these suburbs along the lines of "what are you doing in MY territory, dirty infidel"?

Bloody Hell Keith!
Come storming in here with your common sense and logical approach evidencing rationality and presence of mind! What the hell are you thinking?

(lol!)

You're obviously not wearing your idiot chip today, are you? I forgot to wear mine as well. Never fear though, the rant chanters are still amongst us.

Let's paraphrase and take poetic license with that movie, "The Sixth Sense"

"...I see dumb people...They're everywhere!...They walk around just like everybody else...They don't even know they're dumb!..."

rpg

<<The current ALP government can dismantle the detention centres because the policy worked, the boats stopped.>>

A falsehood also perpetuated by Mr Right. Most detainees arrived by plane - but leaky boats make better media stories.

<<Europe is adopting the policies because they worked.>>

International Herald Tribune 28 may 2008: President Sarkozy announced that on July 1 France would open its borders to all workers from eight countries that joined the European Union four years ago. Only Britain, Ireland and Sweden threw open their borders immediately; France has been among the most reluctant to open its frontiers. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/28/europe/france.php

Mr. Right,

<<Illegal entrants and visa over stayers were the only people detained.>>

The word 'illegal' is misused. People who arrive in Australia seeking asylum do so legally under international law. They are gaoled without committing a crime.

What sort of argument are you running by reference to 'the loony left' (and encouraging plerdsus)? Lazy cliche can't replace logic and evidence. And 'left-leaning Europe and, especially France'? When was the last time you looked at European governments' political leanings?

Lots of Australians were ashamed of the inhumane treatment of asylum seekers and public opinion led to the significant Rudd changes.

daggett,

While not conceding your immigration figures are wrong, you now add natural increase to immigration to try to make an argument about...something.
<<To deliberately increase our population to this extent in these circumstances criminally reckless in my view.>> Colourful language, but is this an argument for abortion or forced repatriation?

Trakka,

What's to be done with our 1,000,000 Australians who are 'freeloading' to use your term in other countries? Hope none of them drowned on the way.

plerdsus,

<<... entry by an alien into a country without leave constitutes invasion, and needs to be treated accordingly.>>

Know anything about the history of Britain? You obviously are totally ignorant of Australia's invasion history.

We may not be able to change 'human nature' (magic words), but you're right about the ballot box - as Kim Beazley found out in 2001, and John Howard found out in 2007.

"President Sarkozy announced that on July 1 France would open its borders to all workers from eight countries that joined the European Union four years ago. Only Britain, Ireland and Sweden threw open their borders immediately; France has been among the most reluctant to open its frontiers.

The relevance of this to illegal immigrantion is what, exactly? Your quote above specifically mentions opening borders to other EU members, not every failed state in Africa or the Middle east.

France would probably be reluctant to throw open its borders because it has enough problems with indigestible immigrants, let alone additional Europeans who are generally from the former Russian bloc. Britain and Sweden are already close to stuffed from unregulated immigration.

Maybe some countries think they have a big enough population already and might like to find employment for their existing citizens?

There is certainly an environmental imperative to limit Australia's population at the present time, but there is no justification to do for economic purposes. Our economic worries relate far more to easily accessed credit, a culture of living on credit, and our link to the global sharemarkets subsequent exposure to problems in other countries. Nothing to do with immigration.

The point here is that we have a global economy, and consequently a globally mobile population who will follow the money. This is human nature, and we see it in our own country where people are flocking to the West to take advantage of the mining boom where the pay is good and there are not enough people to fill the positions.

Also, keeping 'them' out is not a viable long-term strategy as it this is likely to increase the long-term chances of instability in other our and other regions through competition for scarce money and resources, unless we are prepared to signficantly increase out overseas aid program and help foster the expansion of the economies in developing countries. This, of course, is likley to put increasing pressure on our own economies through more competition from cheaper overseas imports.

Another option is to put up the shutters in the futile hope that we will be shielded from negative impacts because 'it's not our problem'.

But let's be real here. Immigrants are, and always have been, an easy target. Always easy to blame society's ills on 'them'.

(puts hands over ears)
La la la la la la!

The writer of the article is not aware or will not admit that what is a dragon for one is a guardian for another. The Howard government had realized that to guard the country from a flood of unauthorized illegal migrants had to take the necessary hard measures that would effectively stop it and prevent a repeat of what happened to other countries. The European countries for years with their loose and so called humanitarian migration laws, especially toward the peoples of their former colonies, had planted the seeds of conflict within their own societies, as Enoch Powell with great insight predicted for Britain. With the awakening blow of 9/11 Europe was rudely shaken from her somnambulistic humanitarianism and was forced to adopt the Australian paradigm. So we are all ‘RACISTS’ now.

http://www.con.observationdeck.org

I wholly agree with daggetts first paragraph.

Similarly socreatease

Your right, Mr Right, the success of mandatory detention was not the people who ended up in detention but those who thought better of trying circumvent australias right to decide who should be allowed to settle here.

Likewise, keith got their first with his

" 'Australia exports its draconian immigration system'

No it didn't. Europe adopted Australia's policy... because it worked.”

Of course the internationalist swill will beat their breasts and rent their garments but who cares, maybe we should review work for the dole and make sure the idle and shiftless left forced to enjoy gainful work-experience, away from their indolent postings here.

Spikey .. <<The current ALP government can dismantle the detention centres because the policy worked, the boats stopped.>> A falsehood also perpetuated by Mr Right. Most detainees arrived by plane - but leaky boats make better media stories.

What? Who is Mr Right, what did he say, when did he say it? How rudely dismissive to tell me my opinion actually was perpetuated by someone else, pompous is the word I'm looking for. Negative stories about Australia, see para 2 of the article, in Europe, were about the boats.

Do you not remember the Tampa, also Nauru and Manus Island detention centers, or Christmas Island - it was all about the boats that the overseas press got hold of, that the author claims - was in their media, nothing to do with putting people in detention centers who came by plane, that got no press. Are you saying the bad press was about plane people, not boat people?

Did you read the article .. that was the point, that Europe is adopting, what the author thinks is, a Draconian Immigration System and a blight on Australia. They like it so much, they are importing it, because it worked is my guess.

Your next point, I have no idea why you have quoted some obscure fact relating to guest workers within the EU - do you read what you post? Test it for relevance, so you don't appear to be just trolling through the comments abusing folks opinions, please.

Thanks goodness we have you here to tell everyone how wrong they are in relation to the article posted.(that's sarcasm)

Keith, Themistocles and Col Rouge et al are right on the money.

The measure of success is exactly that there are no more boats full of dubious characters hiding behind women and children trying to force their entry into Australia.

...and this on the very day another bunch of latent Islamic terrorists have been found guilty in an Australian court.

There are not too many countries on the world that are free from Muslim excesses--and we should keep it that way even if it means having a tougher than normal border control arrangements, and sometimes getting it wrong.

Spikey, Spikey, Spikey...
If you seek asylum you are obliged to repair to the first available sympathetic country, not one several overland/overseas trips away! If you can afford a boat trip/flight, you can afford to undergo due process, no? Internment is enforced due process. A price to be paid for trying to circumvent the system. A tangible consequence, if you like. Still better than where they came from, though, isn't it?
Surprise, surprise! I was not amongst the ashamed. My conscience carries no guilt, real or imagined. Our country, our rules.

Australians overseas, on the whole, would be paying their way whilst travelling under a legitimately obtained travel document paid for with hard cash obtained working lawfully. Oh, and in most cases travelling by serviceable aeroplane, so as to reduce the risk of drowning.

Do YOU know anything about Australia's invasion history? Why do you think the Tasmanian aborigines were a distinct and separate race from their northern cousins? Could it be that they were driven south by aggressive behaviour from said cousins, hmmmm?

So, the indigenous Australians had their homeland "invaded" by a race of people...who ruled from strength and became indigenous Australians...who also had their homeland "invaded" by a third wave of people... who ruled from strength and became indigenous Australians...who had their homeland "invaded" by a wave of WHITE people, who because of skin colour can't rule from strength or become indigenous? Is that your proposition? Really? A bit racist, isn't it?(lol!)
That's quite an opinion you've got there :-)

Too many come to this country for the wrong reason,they believe the ads that it's the rich country. If this was the case why are there so many living on the street, a country where pensioners are eating pet food amongst other things, instead of healthy meals. What right do people have to claim refugee status, claim medical benefits as well as welfare yet they have never payed taxes in our country.So tax payers are keeping them,because they claim to be refugees. It's time this government started to look after Australians first, the one's that worked and payed taxes and help build this country. We don't need free-loaders here just because it makes certain ministers look good.

PHIL MATIMEIN - "KEEPING THEM OUT IS NOT A VIABLE LONG-TERM STRATEGY,AS THIS IS LIKELY TO INCREASE THE LONG-TERM INSTABILITY IN OUR & OTHER REGIONS THROUGH COMPETITION FOR SCARCE MONEY & RESOURCES."

The opposite could be true, if we stop bailing them out they may be forced to rethink some of the silly ideas that cause the overpopulations in their countries.
The overpopulations in these countries is our fault, how?? Their stupid MALE RELIGIOUS LEADERS are to blame for this. The silly people in these countries believe what they tell them. The world has been taking more and more and more of the muslim populations because they will not change their beliefs. Let them suffer the consequences of the failed policy of Sharia law and maybe they might get desperate enough to question the overpopulate doctrine.

We didnt have satellite TV when I grew up, we heard very little news unless it was major and so although these tribal wars and massacres were going on at the time we didnt feel as though we had to try and solve the problems of the world as we just didnt know about them.

Its time we minded our own business and let countries sought out their own disputes unless it somehow threatens us or our allies directly.

"REPORTS OF THE APARTHIED LIKE TREATMENT OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLE."

The Aboriginal people practice Aparthied, more like it. They can go to school, get a job, buy a house like any other Australian of any race, but they choose to live in tribes in outback areas.

Oh Dear! "WE HAVE AN INTERNATIONAL REPUTATION AS A COUNTRY OF DECENCY AND A FAIR GO."

We should care about international opinion. Why? sounds like coercion to me. "You be a good little Western Country and take all our overpopulations and we'll pat you on the head and say you have our international approval." Meanwhile we gain control of your country by stealth.

"A MULTICULTURAL COUNTRY LIKE AUSTRALIA IS LIVING PROOF OF THE VALUE MIGRANTS HAVE MADE TO OUR COUNTRY."

Yes, so far. The Jews may have added something to German culture in the short term too, but because they refused to intergrate they also forced the Germans to go to war, to regain control of their country. The failure of the two tribes in Rwanda to intergrate caused the massive bloodshed there too. Not to mention the bloodbath in Bosnia,the list is endless. This is the not so positive other side of multiculturalism, a bit more serious than enjoying each others food and customs. People like JAMES NORMAN don't seem to understand this, that's why I have to keep repeating it.

ssharkfin: << The Jews may have added something to German culture in the short term too, but because they refused to intergrate they also forced the Germans to go to war, to regain control of their country. >>

Yikes! That could possibly work as satire, but as serious comment... utter poison.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Some of the worst aspects of Australia's "draconian immigration system" were graphically depicted on "Four Corners" tonight. Not only did the system abuse and degrade refugees, but it apparently sent many of the poorly-trained screws nuts as well.

Some system.

This is not about immigration. This is about people like James Norman feeling good about themselves. By taking this position, Mr. Norman shows how kind and caring he is. This is the same mentality we see in much of the Western world, where people like him push for unlimited, unrestricted immigration because they are "compassionate" souls -- and much better than anybody else.

People like Mr. Notrman don't care about the consequences of their policies. They leave the mess thay make for others to deal with.

Another thing is that people like him never admit that the sole reason some of the immigrants go West is to spunge off the taxpayers. Yes, some want to work and some want to sponge.

There is also the fact that old-time immigrants came to Australia to be Australians. Now immigrants often come to live in Australia to live apart of Australia. Not only that, their values are often not Asutralian values. They bring both a "wonderful diversity of restaurants" and their hate and intolerance with them. They demand respect when they don't respect others. This also doesn't bother Mr. James.

After all, living with hate and violence or inflicting these upon others is a small price to pay so that Mr Norman can both feel good about himself and have more dining choices.

kactuz

Rpg

<<Who is Mr Right, what did he say, when did he say it? How rudely dismissive to tell me my opinion actually was perpetuated by someone else…>>

Mr Right contributed to this forum on Monday and you and he are both wrong about boat people.

<<it was all about the boats that the overseas press got hold of, that the author claims - was in their media, nothing to do with putting people in detention centers who came by plane, that got no press. Are you saying the bad press was about plane people, not boat people?>>

The facts are that:

1. The media focus exclusively on ‘the boat people’ because (a) they are too lazy to investigate the facts; (b) boat people sell more newspapers because they provide more ‘colour’, more drama and more conflict and (c) politicians feed the media the red herrings of ‘leaky’ boats, children ‘overboard’ and people smugglers.

2. More unauthorised asylum seekers arrive in Australia by plane than by boat. In 2006-2007, 1388 people were refused immigration clearance at Australian airports and were detained or deported; but only 290 people who arrived by boat were refused immigration clearance. (DIAC 2008). This pattern has been the case for many years.

3. The Australian people generally get their 'information' from media, regurgitate misunderstanding and the myths are perpetuated.

I raise the issue of foreign workers (a high proportion of whom stay beyond their permitted period and become citizens) to make the point that the importation of labour is more important to the EU than detention and that the alleged adoption of Australian methods is grossly exaggerated.

2legit

I’d respond to your post if I could understand what it is you claim I think.

Sharkfin

To claim the Jews caused Germany to go to war would be the sickest joke I’ve read on OLO. But it’s better to have this blatant racism out in the open than having cowardly vigilante violence.

A number of the posters here need to consider what would be the situation
if numbers like those that are arriving uninvited onto the shores of
Europe, were to arrive on our shores.

Woomera would be expanded by five to ten times its present size.
They have an enormous problem compared to ours and they have a land
border as well giving them trouble.

So do not take a holier than thou attitude about this international problem.
Also it is not about asylum seakers either it is simply about economic
migration. In future years it will get much worse as energy gets very
much more expensive.

I commend Tim Murray's "Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity?" published on OLO today at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7896&page=0 The discussion is at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7896&page=0

He quotes Mark O'Connor:

Thus instead of being ashamed that we have lost so many of
our marsupial species, many Australians on the left seem more
ashamed that we do not have flourishing Inuit or Bantu community
in their particular city. Quite why it should be Australia’s
duty to turn itself into a representative sample of the cultures
of the earth is never explained. Instead, there are constant
shouts that any reduction of immigration will lead us tumbling
back into an abyss of “racism” and “boring monoculturalsim”.
Thus Labor was able to disguise a right-wing policy of
relentless growth as left-wing “tolerance”.

Hawke’s and Keating’s spin doctors even took advantage of
the Anglo-Celtic guilt over having immigrated upon the
Aboriginal tribes without their permission and violently
displaced them. Somehow this became a further reason why
high immigration, so long as it was no longer Anglo-Celtic,
was essential - as if inviting in the rest of the world
would legitimise it.

---

I also commend Tim Murray's "Is it reactionary to oppose immigration?" of 19 December 2007 at http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2240

Spikey,
Refer to your responses 15/9/08, 5:01:02 pm when you had responded to various people.

I responded to some of your statements.

Trust this satisfies.

My last point related to the fact that the indigenous Australians fell victim to a technologocally superior force, same way as the beaker people, the Celts, Britons, Romans, Danes, Saxons, Angles, et al did in Britain

Left-leaning Australians definitely go overboard (ha!) about immigration, but they're forced to in order to balance out the rank racism of the Right.

As Spikey pointed out above, arguments of "economic migrants", and comparisons with European countries which operate in entirely different geo- and ethnographic circumstances are bunkum. It's just cheap dog whistling to the tune of "keep the brown people out of the white man's land".

The richest irony is that the conservative government we had for 11 years increased immigration to record levels to compensate for its lack of investment in education, while making a big, sanctimonious show of locking up people who'd been displaced by the invasions we took part in. And the Right sees absolutely no inconsistency or hypocrisy in it.

This is what 2legit said in response to a post of mine:
<<So, the indigenous Australians had their homeland "invaded" by a race of people...who ruled from strength and became indigenous Australians...who also had their homeland "invaded" by a third wave of people... who ruled from strength and became indigenous Australians...who had their homeland "invaded" by a wave of WHITE people, who because of skin colour can't rule from strength or become indigenous? Is that your proposition? Really? A bit racist, isn't it?(lol!) That's quite an opinion you've got there :-)>>

I said I’d respond to 2legit's post if I could understand what it was he claimed I thought.

In turn Zlegit says:

<<My last point related to the fact that the indigenous Australians fell victim to a technologocally superior force, same way as the beaker people, the Celts, Britons, Romans, Danes, Saxons, Angles, et al did in Britain>>

I have an MA from a British university and taught English as a second language for some time. But I haven't a clue what Zlegit is talking about. Can anyone help me out please? What is he trying to say? How does it connect to anything I've written?

What's the missing link?

C.J. Don't shoot the messenger for stating the awful truth. I am not ashamed!! The truth about human nature is awful; we need to face that, not shoot the messenger. Tell me how the Jews are different to all the other religions in the world who want to segregate societies with their religious group on one side and the rest of the population of the country cast in the not one of us holy chosen ones on the outside. How many wars has that caused?

It doesnt excuse the German atrocities, but it is dam well what triggered it.
Now we have this conflict again just when we had that lovely sing along together on Polycarps post.

SPIKEY- And just who am I being racist against. THE JEWS? Dont you think the Jews were also being racist against the Germans by refusing to become one with them by splitting off into their own religious tribe. This is the trouble with religions that scream intolerance, it is really the other way around, it is them that split countries in two. Consider the Catholics and the Protestants in England. No religion no bloody uprisings and massacres would have occurred.

It provokes territorial warfare.

Personally, I have no hatred toward the Jews or Germans or any other race, as long as they dont try to lay claim to the sovereignty of my country, even it is only by the stealth of numbers.

Spikey,

You're being obtuse, giving example out of context and you know it.

You questioned plerdsus regarding a statement pertaining to the history of Britain and accused him of being ignorant of Australia's "invasion" history. I was pointing out that YOU were perhaps not so well versed as you would like to believe. (I've seen no contradiction). The "invasions" of both countries had commonality, that is, subjugation of encumbent residents with superior applied technologies. It just happened a lot more in Britain.
Additionally, I suggested that the "invasions" of Britain were devoid of the guilt issues advocated when discussing the "invasion" of Australia.

So you have an MA? And your point is...?
It just predicates a narrow-minded dedication to engage in repetitive compliance training to the satisfaction of tenuously interested parties in order that one may ultimately work as a government drone or for one of the "c" students of the world. An exercise in self-discipline, at best...

I've no doubt you taught English as a "second" language. It's interesting that you don't claim it as a "first". As the saying goes, paraphrased, "If you ain't good at it, teach!", I guess.

The missing link? Oh goodness, one or two mirror jokes come to mind...

Give over with the befuddled act. Enough equivocation. You are very cognisant of what was said to you. If not, then all that education time was wasted. I would hope that you are better than that.

TTFN

;-)

Sharkfin,

Some of your statements about Jews seem to come straight out of "Mein Kampf".

Just because some of us here reject "political correctness", that shouldn't be taken as a green light for others to effectively excuse the Holocaust.

Sharkfin, you may sing Porkycrap's tunes, but I certainly don't. Mind you, I think even he would baulk at your Nazi sympathies.

You're a racist who, like many, doesn't know it. [Hint: there's no such thing as a Jewish or German "race", except in the minds of racists].

CJM: "You're a racist who, like many, doesn't know it. [Hint: there's no such thing as a Jewish or German "race", except in the minds of racists]."

I seem to recall you spouting about racism applied to Muslims... what race are Muslims, again?

viking13: << I seem to recall you spouting about racism applied to Muslims... >>

Your memory is faulty. I use the term 'Islamophobia' to apply to unnreasonable fear and hatred of Muslims, and 'xenophobia' to refer to a generalised antipathy to people from non-Western cultures.

Mind you, both Islamophobia and xenophobia are structured similarly to racism, and are experienced similarly by their targets. And of course many people who are Islamophobic and/or xenophobic are also racist.

I hope this helps.

2legit

Has it occurred to you that I am genuinely puzzled about what you meant? Communication requires at least two persons. To assume the fault lies solely with the receiver but not the sender is symptomatic of a big problem.

The point about my having a MA and having taught ESL (and I should have mentioned mainstream English as well) was to stress the fact that I am reasonably intelligent and well schooled and experienced in deciphering the meaning of English language texts. So my failure to understand what you were saying might lie with the message rather than the receiver. That's a logically allowable possibility.

Why then were you so aggressive and obtuse in response?

<<It just predicates a narrow-minded dedication to engage in repetitive compliance training to the satisfaction of tenuously interested parties in order that one may ultimately work as a government drone or for one of the "c" students of the world.>>

<<I've no doubt you taught English as a "second" language. It's interesting that you don't claim it as a "first". As the saying goes, paraphrased, "If you ain't good at it, teach!", I guess.>>

I suppose some people write on sites like these not to communicate with others but to let off steam, to express deep-seated concerns, or a range of other motives. So if I have been of any therapeutic service to you, I'm happy. But if you want me to respond to what you said about me, I really will have to understand your meaning.

Spikey,

If you didn't understand then a right and proper action would have been to question me directly for clarification. This you chose not to do.

The reason for your failure to understand is indeed a possibility but given your self-proclaimed literacy skills, highly improbable.

If you sincerely haven't understood by now you are either thick as or doing an excellent job of pretending to be. As a teacher, particularly "ESL", you skill set should be sufficiently enhanced to decipher seemingly confusing messages. Unless you are, as I mentioned, being deliberately obtuse and provocative.

I don't fit the mould of person alluded to in your last paragraph and it's quite obvious you are unwilling/unable to properly respond, so save yourself the trouble. Really, if this is the best you can do, I'm sorry to trouble your head.

C.J.

My spouse and I always say that everyone is racist in the sense that they are proud of their own race and culture and usually feel more relaxed when among their own. This is different from racial discrimination. I dont even believe that it's all about racism I believe it is all about reaction to losing control of territory.

I'll gladly sit at anyones dinner table if they invite me in, whatever colour and enjoy their company.

Australia HAS been enjoying all the variety and colour of the different people from different cultures and the contributions they have made. THIS PROVES WHAT I SAY THAT IT IS NOT PRIMARILY ABOUT RACISM. If the races really hated each other that much there would be wide spread violence already they just wouldnt live together at all.

IT is fear of non-survival, and that is a very REAL fear.
Whole races of people have been unable to survive the taking of their territory and have been pushed to near extinction many times in history. So this isn,t just imagined fear of non-survival. Strategys to overcome this basic instinct in mankind is the answer we need to have PEACE ON EARTH
My push is always to try and head off these civil wars before they begin, by trying to get at the triggers that cause sudden uprisings and somehow head them off decades before they start.

Its about looking ahead to avert tragedys.

"..with our wonderful diversity of restaurants and the tangible contribution that skilled migrants have made to our country..."

migrants not only inputted a larger variety of food menus, but also bring a contamination to the aussie way.what is the aussie way now? cus i tell you i can sit at auburn station right now and not feel very australian at all.

welcome to the new age of rapid migration, in other words, the decline of the australia spirit by the plague of foreign rooted ideologies.

Sharkfin,
"The jews may have added something to German culture in the short term too, but because they refused to integrate they also forced the Germans to go to war, to regain control of their country"

There certainly is nothing racist about that statement, but I have to question the accuracy of it. I am no expert on German history, but my understanding is that after widespread political unrest, the Nazis came to power in 1933 and then capitalized on European dislike of jews (they killed Christ) to scapegoat the jews for all the ills of Germany from WW1 through the depression. The Jews had nothing to do with Germany going to war by invading other countries.

If you have any credible evidence contrary to that I would like to see that.

By the way I am also very much anti MC for probably the same reasons you are, i.e. disharmony. The accusations of racism by CJM and others is pretty much standard response by supporters of MC. It appears that our governments are finally starting to wake up to the failed ideology as nothing has been said about it for 12 months or more and even the word has fallen into disuse.

On topic, the author doesn't even know the difference between immigration and border control, so can be disregarded. OLO has debated boat people many times with the same arguments, without resolve. The changes to the previous system are minimum, as there is still detention and we have to check their bona fides. When some boat people try to test it again is anyone guess.

Spikey,
I would like to see your evidence that more illegals have arrived by air than by boat. We have plenty of 'overstayers' but they arrived with visas, legally.

Banjo says:
<<I would like to see your evidence that more illegals have arrived by air than by boat.>>

The evidence has been around for a long time. e.g. ABS Year Book 2004 noted the trend for 2001-02 when 1,210 unauthorised people arrived by boat, while 1,190 were refused entry at Australian airports.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article42004?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2004&num=&view=

The pattern then trended significantly towards unauthorised arrivals by air. The Immigration Department's Annual Report 2006-07 shows:

For the year 2004-05 there were just 16 unauthorised boat people and 2,058 unauthorised arrivals by air.

For 2005-06 the figures were 69 boat people and 1,995 air arrivals.
For 2006-07 the figures were 137 boat people and 1,678 air arrivals.

In addition, Immigration screening processes at airports produce many more would-be illegal entrants than at seaports. In 2005-06, 1598 people were refused entry at airports compared with 397 at seaports. The next year, 2006-07, the figures were 1, 388 at airports and just 290 at seaports.

http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2006-07/html/outcome1/output1_3_2.htm

These are all official figures, not a figment of my imagination.

They raise the question as to why the media and politicians seem fixated on the 'boat people' and rarely discuss the 'air people'?

I gave some tentative explanations in my earlier post (better photo opportunities, etc) .

I'd be interested in other people's opinions.

Sharkfin – You are right the Jews are the most racist group of people quite possibly the world has ever seen. Just because they are small and weak does not mean they believe in liberalism. The fact that they have a huge number of genetic diseases due to them preferring to marry their cousins then marry a native german/poles/hungarin is testimony to their nefarious and racist ideology. They lived in Europe for 1000 years and most never even bothered to learn the native language. Only in the last few generation have they actually bothered to learn it. And they complain that they are not treated equally and are treated as outsiders!

That’s the way they wanted it!

You reap what you sow!

I am part Jewish and even I know this! I cared for Jewish history as much as I cared about the history of Katmandu but after my mum told me I was part Jewish I took a bit more interest. I wish I had not now and feel quite humiliated at being associated in blood with such people but alas we all have our cross to bear.

Possably the boat people come in large numbers with no return means.
Air people are probably turned around on the spot, without entering AU.\
I think the situation is handled correctly.
There are channels for immagration, if they are not followed, so be it.

Easy: "They lived in Europe for 1000 years and most never even bothered to learn the native language. Only in the last few generation have they actually bothered to learn it. And they complain that they are not treated equally and are treated as outsiders!"

Your being part-Jewish does not excuse you this rubbish. What, pray tell, is the native language of Europe? Do you know of the language called Yiddish (which has a close relationship to German)? Did you know Hebrew had to be reinvented/resurrected around the turn of last century as so few Jews knew it?

Spikey, I think the point about boat and plane arrivals is this: there were plenty of people arriving by plane who then overstayed their (valid) visa. This happens with nationals from many countries including "western" ones. Many of those turned back at airports were not allowed in because they looked to be potential overstayers and for many other reasons. People hopping on leakey boats were another kettle of fish (excuse near pun).

viking13,

<<I think the point about boat and plane arrivals is this: there were plenty of people arriving by plane who then overstayed their (valid) visa...Many of those turned back at airports were not allowed in because they looked to be potential overstayers and for many other reasons.>>

That's not the point at all. The statistics I quote from the Immigration Department's Annual Reports are not about overstayers or (heavens above) 'potential overstayers' (whatever that means!). If a person arrives by air or by boat with a valid visa they are legally entitled to enter Australia (no matter if they 'look' like 'potential overstayers').

The only people who are detained or turned away at point of would-be entry are those without a valid visa. End of story. No amount of wishful thinking or pre-judgments will change that fact. So there has to be a plausible explanation as to why in the popular mind many people think the problem is the 'boat people'.

You are right, however, to object to Sharkfin's racist drivel about the Jews. And you should add EasyTimes whose infantile contribution comes straight from a fascist comic book. What slimy rock have they been hiding under?

Spikey,
Glad you cleared that up about the unauthorised arrivals by air. The key words here are 'refused entry' and although there are exceptions to every rule, I understand that most are simply held until the next available flight back to where they boarded to come here. I think there maybe some onus or obligation on the part of the airline that brought them here. In other words, we do not have to house, feed and keep them like the boat people. Although I do not know what happens if one was to get off a plane and present straight to immigration and claim refugee status. Surely, that scenario is covered someway.

The overstayers (60,000) are of concern as they cannot get legitimate work without a tax number or centrelink payments unless they commit fraud. They are also most vulnerable to unscrupulous employers and others. We catch up with some from time to time but to track them all down would be very costly. I think the number of overstayers will rise in future.

If the air arrivals are held out of sight until deportation the media do not get to see them and the boat people take bigger risks in the leaky boats and more people each time.

DAGGETT: "A green light to excuse the holocaust."

I was not trying to excuse the holocaust, just to try to look at it objectively like an antropologist might to figure out what triggered it.

There's no good looking at it emotionally if you want to figure out what happened and why it happened. We need answers to that.

Banjo: << The accusations of racism by CJM and others is pretty much standard response by supporters of MC >>

No Banjo, I regard someone as racist when they start classifying people in terms of so-called "races", as sharkin does when she refers to ".. the Jews or Germans or any other race". The biological term "race" does not apply to humans, since there is far greater genetic diversity within the so-called races than there is between them. However, the term retains currency among those who wish to classify humanity in essentialist terms - as racists do.

Sharkfin - you're not an anthropologist's bootlace. Look up the difference between "ethnocentrism" and "racism" in any introductory anthropology textbook and you'll see why.

I can't believe that you're still defending your anti-Semitism - the Nazis were entirely responsible for the Holocaust, not the Jews.

Viking13 – Yiddish is what I am talking about! The Jewish communities spoke this language instead of the language of the community they lived in.

English also has a close relationship to German but due to the English and German communities be separated by such distance the languages have changed so much so they we don’t understand one another . The same can be said for Yiddish but the Jews lived across the road from the Germans so distance can not explain the language difference their. It must be something else and that something else is Jews forming ghettos and refusing to teach their children the native language and refusing to have their children ever marry a native of Europes. That’s their choice but they also have to wear the consequences of their choices as well.

CJ – No body here has said that the Nazi are good or the holocaust was good all that has been sadi is that the Jews are not angels as people like you try to portray them as. They are actually a very nasty selfish group of people. Look at Israel for example.

At what stage CJ do you think groups like the Jews need to change their attitude due to them pissing off all the other people around them or is it a case that because they are the little guys they are always right?

Spikey wrote on Monday, 15 September 2008 5:01:02 PM (+10:00)

"While not conceding your immigration figures are wrong, you now add natural increase to immigration ...

My figures were not wrong and it is dishonest for you to allege that they were. I used the term 'immigration' and not 'migration' and didn't refer to natural increases. I assumed that others already understood how each of these components combined to give our overall population increase figure.

Spikey wrote: "... to try to make an argument about...something."

Why don't you just make the effort to read my post properly instead of further adding to the noise on this forum (as if there was not more than enough already)?

I wrote: "Why has the author made no reference to the fact that immigration to Australia has, as a result of a decision announced by Immigration Minister Evans, higher than it has ever been (well over 300,000)?"

The point stands, if, in an article claiming that Australia's system is 'draconian', the author neglects to mention that immigration and population growth is at an all time high then the article is misleading.

---

Unfortunately. It is difficult to pin down exactly what 'immigration' is and for this we need to to thank the ABS who have not provided data that I can easily understand.

If anyone can tell me how they arrived at the net population increase figure of 331,900 from the data on the abovementioned spreadsheet, I would be interested to know.

The figure I get is an EVEN HIGHER figure of 364,700. Overall arrivals should be 446,400 (=SUM(E114:E117)) overall departures should be 226,400 (=SUM(F114:F117)) births should be 285,200 (=SUM(B114:B117)) and deaths should be 137,800(=SUM(H114:H117))

446,400 - 226,400 + 285,200 - 137,800 = 364,700 (NOT 331,900)

Sharkfin,

You really need, at every step, acknowledge the monstrous crime of the Holocaust if you want to stray into the area that you have and be able to absolutely rigorously back up what you say, otherwise people will suspect that you are a Holocaust denier or a Nazi apologist.

I don't regard any people on the planet, including European Jews, Armenians, Muslims, Anglo-Celtic Australians, Germans, etc. as being either wholly virtuous or completely evil. I don't completely discount the possibility that Jews, as a group may, have collectively done something to cause some Germans to bear resentment towards them and turn to the Nazis.

However, as far as I can tell, the Jews were, as a group, loyal citizens of Germany and were made a scapegoat for the failure of the capitalist system and for Germany's defeat.

Possibly evidence to the contrary exists, but you haven't yet produced anything that looks different to me from Nazi propaganda and you have not provided any evidence for what you write.

Easy, I'm surprised that as a part-Jew you don't know more about the culture. Yiddish is in fact Middle High German! There are/were many dialects, with eastern speakers incorporating Slavic words, but in essence Yiddish was German with a few Hebrew words added (such as "synagogue" which entered both German and English anyway) and written in Hebrew script (in similar fashion to Jawi in Malaysia- Bahasa Melayu (Malay) written in Arabic script).

What aspect of Israel leads you to say of Jews " a very nasty selfish group of people. Look at Israel for example."? Is it nasty and selfish for a people to want a homeland, moreover their ancestral homeland? Why aren't "Palestinians" equally nasty and selfish for wanting a land which, in large part, they have no ancestral claim to (with "Palestinians" in large being comprised of Syrian, Lebanese and Egyptian Arabs' immigrant descendants). Why aren't Muslims "nasty and selfish" for claiming Jerusalem as a "holy city" when it is mentioned exactly zero times in the Quran, while Jews (and Christians) have an actual and real claim to the city?

Spikey, we'll have to agree to disagee on the sources and transport modes of illegals.

From my point of view, while I disagree with keeping "asylum seekers" incarcerated for years at a time, there is no way these people should be allowed to go straight out into the community (and yes, the term "queue jumpers" is right). Frankly, I'm disturbed by the level of immigrant numbers now and into the future, no matter what their origin, with the singular exception of skilled migration.

Spain allowed near unfettered migration for years, to the extent that somewhere approaching 10% of the population comprises unskilled migrants- who could be absorbed to an extent while the economic/building boom was on. Now that unemployment amongst native Spaniards is increasing, guess where resentment is aimed? a) at the migrants and b) at the government whose slack immigration policies led to the dilemma (of course, a notoriously PC/left wing government which played the "racist"," Islamophobia", "xenophobia" card at every sign of adverse comment.

Banjo,

You’re still getting it wrong but I continue to do your homework for you. The idea that unauthorised arrivals by air are simply put on the next available flight out and that “…we do not have to house, feed and keep them like the boat people” is fallacious.

The Department of Immigration & Citizenship Annual Report for 2006-07 shows quite clearly:
Of the 4,718 people taken into immigration detention during 2006-07,
• 595 were unauthorised arrivals of whom 584 arrived by air and 11 by boat (compared with 703 unauthorised air and 63 boat arrivals the year before)
• 1,797 people had overstayed their visas compared to 2,099 in 2005-06
• 1,437 illegal were foreign fishers compared to 2,888 in 2005-06
• 889 were ‘others’ compared to 757 in 2005-06.

During 2006-07, 5,044 people were released or removed. They included:
• 22 unauthorised boat arrivals compared to 141 in 2005-06
• 597 unauthorised air arrivals compared to 700 in 2005-06
• 1,836 people who had been living in the community but had overstayed compared to 2,285 in 2005-06
• 1,677 illegal foreign fishers compared to 2,691 in 2005-06
• 912 ‘others’ compared to 809 in 2005-06.
http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2006-07/html/outcome1/output1_3_5.htm

As you can see, many more people in detention arrived unauthorised by air than by boat.

Time to bring yourself up to date with your assessment of the ‘boat people’ myth. In the light of the unassailable fact that they are vastly outnumbered by unauthorised arrivals by air, you need a better explanation why the media, politicians and OLO posters continue to beat the ‘boat people’ drum.

Daggett, Monday: <<…immigration to Australia has as a result of a decision announced by Immigration Minister Evans higher than it has ever been (well over 300,000)>>

Daggett, Friday: << Unfortunately. It is difficult to pin down exactly what 'immigration' is and for this we need to thank the ABS who have not provided data that I can easily understand…The figure I get is an EVEN HIGHER figure of 364,700.>>

If you don’t understand the figures, why chastise me for telling you they’re wrong?

C.J. “there is far greater genetic diversity within the so-called races than there is between them”

That’s why I said I prefer the word TRIBE. Or present closest bloodlines living together or recently living together. I only used the word race because I was no doubt talking to people who talk in terms of race when discussing these issues. It was to make it clearer for them. I notice that you yourself had to use the word races when making your point for exactly the same reason I had to use it.

You have hit on the exact reason I prefer the word tribe to ethnic origins because it is really RECENT HISTORICAL tribal bloodline that people are defending or trying to gain a better life for by conquering resources, when they go to war. They say we are all related because we came out of Africa. Maybe so,but any white tribe can SEE, as can any black tribe from Africa that those ethnic connections are too many thousands of years ago to create any kind of feeling of brotherhood or the need to protect in time of war.

All of mankind KNOWS who their closest bloodline is on earth today(the ones they need to provide for and protect in time of war). They know because they live among them or have recently migrated from them in the last few generations or so. Talk of obscure ethnic connections from long ago and ethnic diversity are attempts to persaude mankind that we are all brothers and sisters. I’ll tell you right now when war breaks out the tribes will know exactly who they are fighting for and all this talk about multiple ethnicity will mean nothing to them. Thats why I perfer the word TRIBE,

I havent had time to look up the anthropology yet as I am busy packing to go away but will do so, although I suspect what I say above shows that all that talk of ethnicity is irrelevant.

SPIKEY: I’ll tell you why I think what happened in Germany was tribal territorial warfare. Because history backs me up.
Tribal Territorial Warfare in recent history-:

1.World War 1- The German leader was assasinated on a trip to the Serbian Section
2.World War 2- (The Germans murdered or expelled 6million Jews, the ordinary German people quitely moved in and took possession of all those 6million homes, cars, bank accounts, jewellery,furniture, whatever(the territorial spoils)
3.Japanese invasion and massacre of 15million Chinese (in the late 1930’s under their Greater Asian Expansionist plan)
4.Somalia
5.The Japanese taking of Singapore,Malaysia, an attempt to take Australia.
6.East Timor
7.The Solomons(the Chinese were attacked by the indigenous population)
8.Rwanda
9.The Arabs and the Jews (present day)
10.The Sunnis and the Shiites
11.The territorial war for control of Ireland waged by the IRA(Irish Catholic Tribe) against The British Protestant Tribe who invaded Ireland in the 16th century.
12.Serbs ethnic cleansing of the muslims in Bosnia
13.Coup in Fiji ( big Indian and Indigenous tribes there standing in elections for government control)
14.Argentina attempts to take Faulklands back from British settlers,(tribal protection provided by the British)
15.Georgia attempts to take Ossetia back from the Russian settlers (tribal protection provided by Russia)
16.The taking of a rich goldmine and the killing of many tribal New Guineans by Indonesian troops along the West border of New Guinea.
17.Turkish history shows that the Turks committed ethnic cleansing of 1million Muslims
18.Suddam Hussein takes Kuwait, ordinary Iraqs in a never ending stream of any old vehicle or truck they could find. drive to Kuwait and loot every thing they can lay there hands on.(territorial spoils). By an eyewitness who was there at the time.

This is why I think the Jews were massacred by the Germans because they provoked territorial hostility by splitting off into a big religous tribe. Mankind has shown over and over again that he will kill over territory and territorial control

sharkfin: << I havent had time to look up the anthropology yet as I am busy packing to go away but will do so, although I suspect what I say above shows that all that talk of ethnicity is irrelevant. >>

Apparently you have enough time to continue to post misinformed rubbish. When you do get time to try and educate yourself, you should also look up the terms "tribe" and "ethnicity".

Meanwhile you're just talking through your arse.

Spikey,
On the contrary. From the links posted by you, shows a drop from about 4000 sea arrivals to 300 from 1999 to 2001, this clearly shows that the previous governments tougher measures worked. It is only since then that unauthorised air arrivals exceeded the sea arrivals. This trend will continue there is a dramatic increase in boat people.

In 2006-7 1388 were refused immigration clearance at our airports and around 95% of these left within 72 hours. Most on the next available flight. These persons are held in transit detention.

The big difference between air and boat arrivals is that most, if not all, boat arrivals apply for refugee status, whereas the majority of air arrivals would not have grounds to apply.

While the figures showing air arrivals is interesting, The point is that our border control measures work and this is why European countries are considering the adoption.

As I said before, it will be interesting to see what happens when the changes are seriously challenged by a large (200 or more) boat load of illegals.

Sharkfin, most of the "examples" you ahve shown have very liitle or nothing to do with Jews.

Also, you should get your facts straight.

The Emperor assassinated in 1914 was Austro-Hungarian, not German (although I believe he was a relative of the German Kaiser, but then so was the King of Britain).

While the Serbs did indeed perpetrate atrocities against the Muslims, as well as Croats, it was a two-way (or rather, three-way) street.

The Turks committed atrocities against Armenians, wiping out an estimated 1.5 million. Armenians are/were Christian.

There are probably gaping holes in your other "examples" but it's too much bother addressing every single one.

Banjo

It seems you want to use the information that suits your case and to assert - as fact - propositions that endorse the Howard Government's 'tougher measures' on 'boat people' and ignore contrary evidence.

You claim, falsely, that: "It is only since then [1999 to 2001] that unauthorised air arrivals exceeded the sea arrivals."

The published data fail to support your thesis. Unauthorised arrivals by air surpassed unauthorised arrivals by sea in 1995-1996 and maintained the lead until 1998-99, lost it to the 'boat people' and then regained the lead in 2001-02 and have held it ever since.

So your simplistic cause/effect relationship doesn't square with the evidence. Mandatory detention began under the ALP in 1992. Howard's 'tougher measures' took effect in 1997. Rudd's policies are just now being implemented in the last quarter of 2008.
(See Figure 5.35 in
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article42004?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1301.0&issue=2004&num=&view= )

As for detention at airports compared with detention generally, your statistics were a one-off aberration for 2004-05.

If you look at the very latest figures as at 5 September 2008, you'll find that 36 people arrived by air unauthorised compared with just 6 unauthorised boat people. On you argument, we must be turning the 'boat people' back even quicker that the 'air people'.

You say, "The big difference between air and boat arrivals is that most, if not all, boat arrivals apply for refugee status, whereas the majority of air arrivals would not have grounds to apply." Do you have any evidence for this - or is this simply how you would like it to be?

You say (again) , "...it will be interesting to see what happens when the changes are seriously challenged by a large (200 or more) boat load of illegals."

Wishful thinking just to prove your obscure point? Of course, the pejorative word 'illegals' is political. It has no legal definition. Try 'unauthorised'.

Spikey,
Am sure you simply like to argue and also like to nit pick. Illegal means unauthorised or prohibited so i will continue to use the word.

Yes illegal air arrivals did exceed sea arrivals for the few years that you mentioned but only because illegal sea arrivals fell to very low levels. Illegal sea arrivals fell from about 4000 per year to about 300 immediately after our government put a stop to the illegals setting foot on the Australian mainland and have been insignificant ever since. Quote from your own links, when discussing numbers for 2000-1 'This decline may reflect the impact of recent measures by the Australian government to discourage unauthorised arrivals'

That is good enough for me to say that the tougher border control measures worked. Whether you agree on not is totally irrelivant.

Many of the illegal air arrivals come from western democracys and they would find it difficult to convince our immigration officials that they were 'fleeing oppression' and claim refugee status. thus, as I said in the first instance, they are refused entry and sent packing. If this were not the case our detention facilities at our points of air entry would not cope. The few that are held for longer than 72 hours is insignificant, thus your statement of more air arrivals than sea arrivals is very missleading.

Given human nature, i am sure that it is only a matter of time to when a boat load of illegals try to make here.

Spikey wrote:

"If you don't understand the figures, why chastise me for telling you they're wrong?"

The Article you cited at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23714642-421,00.html gave the total immigration program was "more than 300,000". That's a figure I have heard a lot. I recall that Rudd once mentioned that figure in the 2007 election campaign and it's about what the immigration lobbyists are demanding. Perhaps I was careless to repeat that figure, but it seems to me that your claimed "net migration" figure of 120,000 does not give the complete picture.

As just one example a pdf document at http://www.mccrindle.com.au/wp_pdf/AustraliaPopulationMap.pdf downloadable from http://www.mccrindle.com.au/ gives a NET MIGRATION figure of 177,000 out of a total population growth figure of 315,900 (which is curiously less than the ABS figure of 331,900 for the 12 months to 331,900).

If the immigration figure is under 300,000 then that is an enormous relief to me, but the fact remains that it is still obviously far to high for the benefit of existing residents, not to mention the environment.

As just one example, see story "Water prices will soar to help pay for $9bn grid in south-east Queensland" at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23684769-2702,00.html

Why are we paying increased water rates to build grids in South East Queensland or desalination plants in NSW or Victoria?

Clearly, if our population had not grown because economists insisted that it was necessary for our economic prosperity, our (relatively speaking) natural and cheaper water supply infrastructure would have been able to meet our needs. Now, it is necessary to pay for for more technologically complex and expensive means to fix our system. As with water all the infrastructure costs are becoming more expensive per capita now that we have exceeded our optimum population size. Somehow this has not been factored into the economic models of pro-population growth propagandists.

My point remains: Why in article, which claims that Australia's immigration system is "draconian," is a critical fact that our immigration rate is at a record high, which already exceeds the record that Howard established, not mentioned.

As for Spikey's elaborate statistical argument, that seeks to discount the concern that unauthorised arrivals by sea will increase if effective deterrences (whether custodial or not) are not employed, I refer people to the article "Tiny Lampedusa struggles with tide of clandestine immigration" at http://candobetter.org/node/712 in which the Mayor of Lampedusa is quoted:

"It is an uninterrupted influx, we cannot cope. The immigrants are escaping war or famine.
This is the nearest port from North Africa, that is why they all end up here. And here nothing
functions anymore: the rubbish collection, the sewers, the water supply, the hospital. With
6,000 inhabitants plus the tourists, we must ration even the water to provide for the immigrants.
The desalination plant cannot cope. Meanwhile, there are thousands of other refugees ready to
leave from Libya."

---

Upon reflection, it was valid for Sharkfin to have raised the issue of tribalism even if it wanders into the historic minefield of the Nazi Holocaust. To question whether the existence of a large religious tribes such as Jews within German society was tenable in the longer term should not imply support for the monstrous Nazi 'final solution'. Had Nazism not triumphed in the 1930's, then other solutions could have been arrived at. These might have involved either the mutually agreed separation of the tribes into viable geographical regions or the assimilation of the Jewish tribe into the larger German tribe.

As for Australia, the plan to turn this country into "a representative sample of the cultures of the earth" as Mark O'Connor put it, is clearly insane, except in terms of selfish interests of that cynical minority in our midst, namely the "growth lobby" who have foisted this policy upon the rest of us through clever propaganda in which they have been able to depict themselves as being warm, welcoming, altruistic and compassionate.

It will probably take decades to fix up this mess, if it can be fixed at all.

Perhaps this discussion should move to the abovementioned forum in response to Tim Murray's article "Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7896&page=0

Daggett

The article I mentioned does include the figure 300,00 but you need to read more critically. The article includes "190,300 in the permanent migration stream, 56,500 in the family stream and about 50,000 in the temporary skilled migration program - totalling more than 300,000."

But note (a) the inclusion of 50,000 TEMPORARY skilled workers who will be required to go home at the end of their contracts.

And (b) the article also fails to mention the permanent departures from Australia - around 70,000 each year. So stop the panic.

You are continuing to cite "the plan to turn this country into "a representative sample of the cultures of the earth" as Mark O'Connor put it.""

What plan? Just mindless parroting of inane propaganda doesn't make it true. It's the same with immigration figures - mindless repetition of incorrect data won't make them true. Do your own sums. There's nothing 'elaborate' in the statistics. But if you find it all a bit much I'll lend you my calculator.

Banjo

"Illegal means unauthorised or prohibited so i will continue to use the word." But asylum seekers do not break Australian or international law. Look it up.

"That is good enough for me to say that the tougher border control measures worked. Whether you agree on not is totally irrelivant."

So the facts don't matter - all that counts is whether you think so? So self-delusion is perpetuated.

viking13 – you can put as much spin on it as you like you can say that it is high German and the like you can make little quibbles but in the end it is a different language.

Yiddish is written from right to left and uses the Hebrew alphabet. Correct me if I am wrong but those to points alone prove that it is very different to German!

"Yiddish is written from right to left and uses the Hebrew alphabet. Correct me if I am wrong but those to points alone prove that it is very different to German!"

I did mention the Yiddish script at some time....but you claimed that Jews wouldn't learn the "native language of Europe" of which German is one, yet a Yiddish speaker would be able to converse with a German with perfect understandability, since they would be SPEAKING the same language.

Considering that Jews served in the German Army in WWI with distinction, and formed the backbone of the German medical system until 1930s, it's indeed strange that none of them could speak German!

It's really hard to get through to some people, even normally intelligent (part) Jews.

LOL Viking13. You seem to think that they called it Yiddish because it was the same as German. Come on now if it was the same why give it a different name?

What about the Jews in Poland, Hungary or Russia? Are you going to try and tell me Polish is also German? How about Russian? It’s the same as German as well right?

An Essential Research Poll which came in the wake of the Labor Government's announcement that it was liberalising mandatory detention policy indicated that Australians still retain a hardline attitude towards asylum seekers. Less than a quarter of respondents (24%) said the past policy on asylum seekers had been too tough, while 62% said it had been right or not tough enough. The poll also reported that a majority of Australians think that the country is now taking too many refugees.

A poll by the Red Cross earlier this year on vulnerable groups in the Australian community found that 89% of respondents felt the elderly living alone needed more help, 88% felt those with mental illness needed more help, 84% felt the homeless needed more help. In the same poll only 39% of respondents felt the asylum seekers needed more help.

Governments, by necessity, look at the bigger picture. There is growing realization that the international refugee system has become dysfunctional and the distinction between economic migrants and genuine refugees has become very blurred. People leaving dysfunctional third world countries are probably more than likely to depart their countries for economic reasons. Global criminal syndicates dealing in people smuggling attempt to bypass legal immigration controls by presenting economic migrants as asylum seekers in order to exploit compassion in liberal Western democracies such as Australia.

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

The dysfunctionality of the international refugee system was illustrated when Turkey applied for membership of the European Union. In order to fulfil its human rights obligations Turkey ratified the Protocol to the UN Refugee Convention with a geographical reservation limiting Turkey's obligations to asylum seekers fleeing conflicts in Europe only, whereas obviously the vast majority of the world’s asylum seekers are fleeing from Africa and the Middle East.

There is no argument about Australia becoming more of an integrated multi-national country.We need to be, or our economy will come to a shuddering halt and our development will be retarded if not halted. One cannot help noticing each quarter if not each passing month how our shopping centres are palpably revealing the growth of migrant population in Australia.There has been a sort of explosion of peoples from the Middle East,India, Malaysia,Vietnam,China,the Philippines, and now from African countries from East Africa,central,west and South Africa.And I find it so stimulating as I talk to them and ask where they are from and how they are getting on and they are only too happy to tell me their stories which I find sometimes terribly sad and sometimes so inspiring.And that is as it should be. This is proof of a responsible and effective immigration policy that is working so well as far as i can see.
There is only one thing that I for one as an Australian require of them and that is that they make no attempt to subvert our secular democratic society and integrate peacefully and become Australians.

That doesnt mean that we should abolish our detention centres and monitoring scrutiny and repatriate those who are security services reject.I am totally opposed to detaining them for a period of time and then offering them extended work visas to enable them to qualify in a job and be given permanent residence afterwards.Why put them into detention centres in that case? If they were found to be unfit for assimilation then they wil still be suspect somewhat later down the track.Some undesirable and criminal elements have fooled us and crept in already.We need to beef up our intelligence services and train them more effectively and then have the guts to deport the undesirables ASAP.

socratease