Tut tut, Mr. Right. Such vehemence?

“Romany,

You have opened your big mouth again.” Why yes, Mr. Right. Look closely at the title of this ‘zine.

Had I had said you were all mouth and no substance, or a sad knuckle-dragger and an idiot I could understand your choler. The word “obtuse” – lacking perception or sensitivity – is hardly abusive. You yourself consign those with sensitivity to the ranks of the bleeding hearts.

“ You recently proved that you know nothing about Chinese food production, even though you claim to live there; so anything you claim to know must be taken with a grain of salt.”

Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but your superior knowledge comes second hand from a three week trip your non-Chinese speaking wife made to China, does it not?

I however, have never claimed to be an expert on Chinese agriculture. In response to your news that ALL food in China is grown using human ordure as fertilizer I merely pointed out that this does not apply where I live. I didn’t deny such methods were used, even mentioning that such practices, common in other countries, may indeed pertain to parts of China.

What on earth was it about that eminently reasonable statement that caused you to subsequently cast doubts upon my every utterance? It appears like a most bizarre over-reaction to me.

”I did NOT SAY THIS: …” I know perfectly well you didn’t. I was addressing someone else who feels their morality is superior - unaware that you regarded yourself in this way.

“There are a few people like you on OLO, claiming all sorts of knowledge, experience and adventures” Indeed there are. We find it hard to believe that there are people who enjoy staying in one place and receiving all their opinions on life via the television. But hey, life really IS a box of chocolates, huh?

I, at least, have never publicly discounted the views of such people as bull dust.

Posted by Bruce Haigh, Friday, 21 November 2008 9:27:47 PM:

"Perhaps we should only take refugees and scrap the social engineering contained in our immigration program."

What social engineering would that have been, I wonder? What interests are seen as having been advanced as a consequence of the Australian migration program?

Accepting, on this admission, that the Australian immigration program was conceived as a social engineering project, could it be that the program is seen as having failed its would-be engineers, and that those same would-be social engineers now need to revert to an open slather system over which Australia will have no effective control? Such is what the boat-people traffic, until the Tampa incident and the 'Pacific Solution', threatened to rapidly become.

Thanks for setting me right, dickie, regarding that link in the article to the Edmund Rice Centre. I guess I was just bearing in mind what other posters had claimed in related threads, that many secondary asylum seekers held professional qualifications. Seeing Worldwide ERC, an international professional placement organisation, as the destination of that link had me jumping to conclusions both as to its interest in secondary movement asylum seekers as a recruitment pool, and to some connection through the Christian Brothers with the worldwide interests of Roman Catholicism.

That link also called to mind an interview conducted by Andrew Denton with a now-retired Catholic priest, in which the subject of secondary movement asylum seekers and mandatory detention arose. That priest had expressed surprise that it was an issue upon which, for the first time in his experience, he had had his authority directly challenged by some parishioners. I guess I just thought I had seen a connection. Mustn't get too fanciful.

The article ignores the fact that Australia is effectively naturally relatively isolated from primary movement asylum seeking. As part of this evasion it tries to guilt trip Australia into taking on responsibilities for asylum seekers from which it is legally and properly exempt.

The article, in attempting to institute a political vendetta, really seeks to challenge Australian sovereignty.

In my last post I said:"illegals should be turned straight around; all immigration, including any refugees, to Australia should cease."

I said this for many reasons, not the least being that two thirds of Australia is uninhabitable (the know-all foreigner, Anansi is not aware of this) because of the environment. Most people live around the coast, and most immigrants and so-called refugees flock to those heavily populated regions also. NSW and Victoria are short of water and will be for the foreseeable future. Qld is typical of Australia, with 'droughts and flooding rains', and the flood waters go out to sea.

Tim Flannery, Australian of the Year, darling of the wet left and overall climate change alarmist said years ago that the ultimate population is 13 million. We now have 20 million plus, and both major political parties are determined to increase the population; in the case of the current vandals, at 200,000 per year, as part of their homage to greedy big business.

Unemployment is on the rise. The mining boom is not a boom anymore, with business experts advising that jobs are dropping off as the boom levels out.

These facts make the influx of people to Australia suicidal.

At the very least, the mantra of Australia being a “nation made up or immigrants” is boring and meaningless. It’s also quite stupid to call people who descend from the first fleet ‘immigrants’. Most migrants were brought to Australia after WW11 when they were needed. Migrants are not needed now.

To those people with an unchangeable mindset on ‘immigrant country’ nonsense, I say, “So what?” How does this mean we should continue to take migrants we do not need; migrants who are causing increased harm to our environment and putting a strain on our infrastructure, water supplies, power supplies; pushing up housing prices and rents, all to make a few rich people richer while the average citizen pays and pays for things they neither want nor need.

The fools screeching on behalf of illegal arrivals and maybe-refugees are trouble making anarchists, always on the prod to cause trouble.

Mr Right “Your contributions as an immigrant and now true-blue, fair dinkum Australian are always appreciated.”

I am humbled by your appreciation.

I consider myself lucky to have been accepted to join this nation and know the contribution I make is valued by those who pay (generously) for my business services,

That despite CJMorons piffling denigration of my credential “if we need more bean counters there is absolutely no reason why we can't train our own.”

To comment on CJMorons point,

whilst Australia does produce large numbers of “bean counting” accountants, I use one to do my tax returns for me, we, obviously, do not produce sufficient who combine the skills sets which I sell, otherwise I would not be able to negotiate a 3 day a week job paying a 6 digit income and leaving me time to pursue some even more profitable ventures, which will shortly employ a few more folk, at a time when every job in Australia is precious.

Further, I chose Australia and Australia chose me.

I have every sympathy for people who are stricken by a war torn homeland but believe the solution is to fix the problem in that homeland, rather than blindly import criminals and those carrying contagious diseases into our social system,structures and practices which are alien to them.

I am compassionate enough to believe we should accept properly documented and accredited refugees.

I am sensible enough to believe we must impose life bans on anyone who arrogantly and with contempt for our rights, attempts to gain residency through deception or evasion of the migration officers, who are employed to protect us and uphold the statutes which we elect politicians to enact upon our behalf.

So Anansi made a great show of declaring how

“the children of refugees are on average achieving better economically and academically than those born here from 'true blue aussie parents' or from skilled migrant parents.”

And I asked that such a statement be proven, however, distinguishing those from refugees with visas and those from queue-jumping illegal entrants……. We are all still waiting.

“The Problem with the 1951 Refugee Convention” by Monash University academic Adrienne Millbank (url given previously) provides an appendix listing UN Member States and their status as being either Signatories or Non-signatories to the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Afghanistan is listed as being a non-signatory, however, listed as being signatories in the immediate region of Afghanistan are the following countries: Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russian Federation, Tajikistan Turkey and Turkmenistan.

The failed asylum seekers featuring in the documentary “A Well Founded Fear” travelled long distances around the world through countries with little interest in persecuting in order to seek refuge in Australia, even though several signatories are located in the immediate region of Afghanistan.

The asylum seekers did not enter Australia’s migration zone and their claims were duly process under unhcr criteria, some by Australian immigration officials and some by UNHR officials. The asylum seekers were duly returned to their countries of origin after their claims were found to be unsubstantiated. The documentary lacked any evidence to prove that the process was flawed or the convention was incorrectly applied.

After the return of the asylum seekers some years passed and the asylum seekers are again claiming to be in need of protection. If the asylum seekers felt their lives were again being threatened and in great danger could not the immediate solution have been for themselves and their families to have travelled to one of the several countries (listed above)in the immediate region and applied for protection.

Switzerland is noted by Anansi as having the highest per capita refugee intake. In September 2006 a referendum was held in Switzerland, the result being that Swiss voters approved legislation for restriction on asylum seekers. Zurich's Tages-Anzeiger wrote “There can be no argument about it: A good two-thirds of the voters said yes to the new asylum law. The discontent is too great about foreigners who deceive the authorities to get admission to Switzerland, the paradise of prosperity.” Perhaps the referendum result was recognition by the Swiss electorate of the dysfunctionality of the international refugee system.

Mr Right, what bitterness. Doesn’t make for convincing arguments though.

Don’t you find it just a little bit silly jumping to wild and fanciful conclusions about posters? Stick to the arguments. Not make up weird fantasies about the posters.

ColR can do that too.

The one and only passport that I can obtain is Navy blue depicting a coat of arms with a kangaroo on the left and an emu on the right sides of a shield depicting the badges of the six states of Australia. How many different passports can you and Col have?

My eldest son, by the way, is serving in the Australian armed forces. My second son spent a year in the magnificent outback as a very hard working jackeroo (often 10 – 12 hours physical hard work days) he has a certificate III in (Cattle) agricultural science to prove it. He has a gift with breaking in brumbies and yardwork. My daughter is a top scoring high school student whose ambition it is to represent Australia overseas. My children are first generation Aussies.

Col, you know the hoops you had to jump through? Imagine for just a moment that some of that documentation, police clearance etc. have to come from a country where the registration/government buildings (at least there were registrations) have been burned down and the nearest country Australia can get a criminal check from has nothing to do with the country you came from. Imagine just for a moment that because of your place of birth and capricious changes within a local government you have suddenly been rendered stateless. How big were your hoops? Mine were enormous, yet my professional qualifications are Australian.

How did the Greens/left make it to this debate? Are we talking about the total numbers of immigrants or is this about refugees, Australia’s paranoia about them and the fate of refugees who have been sent back?

Again, research Australia’s truly extraordinary history, starting with the reasons why Australia was first colonized. It is one of the most amazing stories in the world.