Mr. Right, "Morgan was [the] ... only one to twig that Mr. Right was also Leigh some time ago."

CJ wasn't the only one. I noticed that Leigh disappeared, and at the same time a Mr Right with similar ideas spoken in a more vitriolic tone appeared. If there were two of us who noticed there are almost certainly more.

I don't think I have responded to a comment of yours before. This is because I normally respond only to people who I think are amenable to reason. This may seem like a lie as I have responded to runner. But if you choose your approach well he is amenable to reason - or at least can be manipulated by using it. You - I suspect not so much.

In any case I agree with you this time. Actually, I should not say that. If your were intending to seduce someone to your point of view your words here they are an unmitigated disaster. I agree with Yabby. I think CJ is wrong, and Yabby nailed it. I have been feeling guilty at not supporting Yabby here, but I have nothing to add. It is soooo much easier to say nothing after a few glasses of wine.

You should try wine, Mr Right, or perhaps some other mind altering drug if you prefer. Right or wrong, as it stands you have no chance of persuading the readers here with your arguments. You are wasting your time. With wine, Mr Right, you may not feel the need to hide behind your pseudonym and be able to post as Leigh, again. That would be nice.

Mr Right; “Anyway, CJ Morgan will be pleased to know that people smuggling and people attempting to enter Australia is on the rise since Ruddy Labor overturned our border protection”

The weakening of border-protection policy was one of the stupidest pieces of politics I’ve ever seen, being right up there with Rudd’s big boost in immigration and increase in the baby bonus.

What the hell does he think he’s doing? This stuff is just so absolutely contrary to the national interest.

So now we’ve got a new wave of asylum seekers to deal with. Wonderful.

What do you think about this CJ?

.
In response to Col’s four points of 3 December; yes, yes, yes and yes!

Anansi “millions of displaced persons are living in very often appalling conditions in refugee camps, many for YEARS.”

And they have my sympathy.

Regarding your view concerning the Australias issue of refugee Visas -

“a yearly intake of 13,000 refugees “

“It is a laughable number “

and

“My view is that if Australia, and please let's not constantly compare ourselves to little crowded European countries, changes the 'mix' of permanent arrivals into Australia by having a much, much larger number of humanitarian visas “

It is entirely possible for our government, who are primarily responsible for acting in the interests of Australian citizens, with some secondary compassion for the interests of non-Australians and who are accountable to the Australian Electorate, to assess and change the numbers of different types of visas.

A healthy community entitles everyone to Lobby government to influence the numbers of visas available but ultimately we are entitled to ACT only within the discretion of the law which is designed to protecct us all.

It is not the right of anyone, anywhere, least of all non-citizens, to deliberately evade Australian migration officials by landing on a deserted beach and pretending they are refugees. The polite word for that is “Anarchy”.

Anyone who arrives with proper visas, legally obtained should be welcomed by the rest of us. Then we can all help them assimilate into a culture which is alien to them.

but please

Stop trying to justify the un-lawful and selfish actions of what amounts to "refugee anarchists", who are deliberately undermining Australia’s Rule of Law and the right of all Australian legal residents and citizens to expect a "secure national border".

Maybe if they and their fellow country men had more respect for the Rule of Law in their own country, their countries would not be the sort of places from which they are seeking to escape.


Ludwig, your concurrence is valued : - )

rstuart,

"If you were intending to seduce someone to your point of view your words here they are an unmitigated disaster."

But, I am not intending to change anyone's point of view on Online OPINION. I am expressing MY OPINION. I don't care if 99.9% of posters don't agree with me. I am glad that some people do agree with me, but I totally accept that others do not, as is their right.

I am not a persuader. My 'people skills' are crap. All I have wanted to do is express my opinions and see others' opinions on all sorts of subjects.

What really brings the Hun out in me is people like CJ Morgan who try to suppress other people's opinions by abuse, nastiness, sarcasm and any ruse they can dredge up from their dreadful minds and personalities. As I have said before, all they have to do to disagree with me - or anyone else - is to simply express their own opinions.

Nine times out of ten, when I disagree with what someone else posts, I’ll do what most people do – pull a face, make a private derogatory remark or say and think nothing, and move on. But over the time I’ve been using OLO, there have been a few nasty people who cannot leave others alone. CJ Morgan and a nut called Ranier have been the nastiest, most vicious and most vacuous offenders. Ranier has gone – probably dead of his own poison. Hopefully, CJ Morgan will do the same thing.

Be careful of the wine. Alcohol is a dangerous drug.

Ludwig: << Surely there is no doubt about either of these points. >>

There clearly isn't among those who were predisposed to respond to the shameful Howard/Ruddock line. For those of us who remember the context of that regrettable episode in Australia's recent history however, we recall the Coalition was scraping the bottom of the barrel in its efforts to win back the racist/redneck constituency that it had lost to One Nation. In that sense, "border security" and 9/11 were a godsend for that morally bankrupt regime.

Ruddock was certainly talking up the numbers in that reprehensible campaign, and you're quite correct - I certainly don't share your faith in his honesty with the Australian public. Which means that your conjecture about what would hypothetically have happened if he happened to be telling the truth and if his government hadn't implemented the appalling 'Pacific Solution' remains just that - i.e. conjecture.

Those who are currently seeking asylum are apparently mostly Aghanis, and I think that their selection of Australia as a place to seek refuge stems at least as much from Australia's stupid involvement in their civil war as it does from any perception that we are a soft touch for asylum seekers. As with the Vietnamese boat people some decades ago, if Australia insists on sticking its nose militarily into other countries' affairs, we can expect that a proportion of displaced persons will seek refuge here.

As I've said, there may well be a case for reviewing the UN Convention, but while Australia remains a signatory to it in its current form we are legally and morally obliged to grant asylum to those bona fide refugees who seek it in Australian territory.

CJ, even if the rate of arrivals had not increased at all, you’ve surely got to accept that it wasn’t going to stop any time soon after August 2001, if our policy hadn’t changed. Can you offer any reason why the rate of influx would have stopped or slowed, or indeed not increased considerably at that time?

As I said in my last post, even in the absence of an escalation in numbers, continued arrivals would surely have led to increased civil unrest and a very strong demand that the government do something decisive about it.

I was no fan of the Howard government. But I certainly don’t see their actions over this issue in anything like the cynical manner that you do. And I don’t see the overwhelming view of the Australian populace of being in favour of curtailing people-smuggling as racist or redneck or otherwise at all unreasonable.

“…while Australia remains a signatory to it in its current form we are legally and morally obliged to grant asylum to those bona fide refugees who seek it in Australian territory.”

The great flaw in the refugee convention is that it is open-ended. No matter how many refugees come here, we are just supposed to accommodate them all! That is hopeless!! My mind boggles as to how such a policy could have been dreamed up in the first place or how ANY country could have become a signatory. Clearly, if the numbers become too large, they’ll fundamentally affect a country’s social integrity, and greatly harden community attitudes towards refugees.

Presumably you accept this CJ. So then, what would your point of balance be? How many do you think we could accommodate, or at what continuous rate of arrival?

Don't you think that it was just good sensible policy to tighten border-protection against the possibility of the number of arrivals grealty increasing, or increasing at all, or even remaining at a relative trickle...and concentrate on our refugee efforts through our offshore programs?