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.