We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come”.

Ludwig I’ve been trying to determine what it is about this quote that’s objectionable. I recall thinking at the time “there’s one for the headlines and won’t it go down well?”

Sadly we do not decide everything that occurs in and around Australia. For example treaties, declarations and conventions concerning the movement of people between countries are an acknowledgement this takes place and not every country is equipped to deal with it. Regardless of what is said asylum seekers will come; refugees will arrive on our shores; authorities will tie up resources dealing with it. “Border protection” has a nice ring to it but doesn’t accurately describe the situation. “Border administration” would be more accurate.

Uncle Johnny certainly lent assurance to many that he’d look after us and protect us from the swarthy hordes and give sensible fatherly advice when needed. He was talking through his hat.

I recall disgraced President Nixon, when he initiated contact with the Chinese government in Beijing made comment to China’s human rights record and the right of people to freely travel as they wish and their right to leave a country. The reported Chinese response was..

if you mean Chinese refugees, how many would you like, 10 million, 20 million ?

Nixon apparently declined the offer.

“34 million people around the world today have been displaced by war and conflict”

The notion that they should all come to Australia for resettlement is a complete crock of tish.

“Solving “ the discomfort of those 34 million will only ever be achieved by plans which deal with the problems creating these displaced people, not by pretending an open boards policy would solve anything (other than adding 20 million Australians to the list).


And doubtless the 34 million does not include the “economic refugees” of the India, CSri Lanks, Pakistan and Bangladesh, who use poor documentation and confusion as a cover for their attempts at fraudulent migration.


As Ludwig right states in support of the Howard governments view

“We will decide who comes to this country, and the circumstances under which they come”

It is “An eminently sensible lynchpin statement.”

My previous post stated “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”.”

So throw all the tish at me that you want, I am used to being on the receiving end of abuse by the scornful.

The truth and reality is as I have stated.


This is like using Round-Up, the intention is to spray the weeds.


Have a nice day all....

bennie,

If Europe isn't relevant, how about the US and Canada, which are separated from the main asylum seeker source countries by a lot more water than we are? This graph shows asylum seeker numbers by country for 2001, before the Europeans tightened up their procedures, i.e. when they had the more humane system the refugee advocates want.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/imm_asy_see-immigation-asylum-seekers

The big numbers in Europe were certainly a concern to the Labor government and to Gerry Hand, the Immigration Minister in 1992 when they introduced mandatory detention. (See the Parliamentary Library briefing papers on asylum seekers.) If you want to claim that Australia is somehow different from almost all the other developed countries, apart from New Zealand, which is really hard to reach in an irregular way, please present some evidence.

The idea that Australia somehow has unlimited space for more and more people needs to be retired, as most of the country is uninhabitable, and in any case, the asylum seekers mostly go to the cities. We have outgrown our water supplies everywhere apart from Tasmania and the tropical North. Today's Sydney Morning Herald contains an item about how the NSW government is planning to build houses on a piece of critically endangered habitat with several endangered species. In terms of usable land and water, we are crowded.

If you say that you want a more humane system, but not open borders, then you need to explain how we will deal with problems such as the Europeans and Americans have experienced: people who have destroyed their travel documents so the home country can't be identified or has an excuse to refuse to cooperate, people who abscond (with the aid of shonky employers) when their claims look likely to fail, and people who resort to lengthy and expensive appeal procedures that can be used to drag things out while they embed themselves in the community.

You might have read too much into my post Divergence. My reply was about Howard's populist grandstanding. We would do better establishing better vetting procedures. Provided we accommodate our humanitarian obligations we can enact any law we like.

Unless you're saying we're not up to it. From many posts the difficulty in establishing bona fides seems to be a, if not the, major problem.

In the meantime, the sixth boat of would-be illegal entrants since Labor’s election has arrived in our waters. I have just finished writing to the Immigration Minister, Senator Chris Evans about this.

I too was highly amused, Col Rouge, by Fractelle’s praise for CJ
Morgan for his “ignoring (of) ad hominem attacks.” What a silly one-eyed person she is: totally ignoring the vicious bile handed out by CJ Morgan.

Fractelle is shaping up to be the female version of CJ Morgan. She also needs to get a Thesaurus: ‘ad hominem’ has been done to death!

Ludwig is nicely tying Mad Dog Morgan (CJ has a similar attitude to society, and could even be descended from the bushranger) up in knots. This subject has caused the most uproar, unrest and difference of opinion in any time since the Vietnam War and conscription. And I don’t think the huge number of responses to Bruce Haigh’s article can be put down to any cleverness on his part. It is, and will always be, a contentious, with uproar and unrest. Remember, there are millions of people out their who don't post on OLO.

Mad Dog still likes to talk about me I see: “…as disingenuous as Mr Right's purported environmental concerns.” My environmental concerns are not ‘disingenuous’ – they are ‘frank’, ‘candid’ and ‘sincere’. As for “Face it, you guys simply don't want any refugees coming to Australia…” , I do not think I have ever made any secret of the fact that I don’t want refugees coming here. That does not make me a xenophobe. I am greatly concerned about Australia’s burgeoning population, and I do not believe we should be taking anyone in. But, if you want to focus refugees only, yes, I have said that the whole refugee business is a giant con job, and I don’t like it. I have never tried to hide the fact that I do not want refugees coming to Australia.

I would not want them under any circumstances. I hope that is clear enough.

Leigh/Mr Wrong: << My environmental concerns are not ‘disingenuous’ >>

Yeah right. You've certainly shown yourself to be a true environmentalist under your various guises here:

<< It is rather premature to get excited over ‘alternative’ energy sources >>

<< A carbon-neutral lifestyle would not achieve anything, given that climate change (the touted reason for such a lifestyle) is brought about by natural causes >>

<< “Australia must reduce greenhouse pollution as quickly as possible to the lowest levels possible…” is the typically naïve call from young lefties who have never had responsibility for anything, including themselves >>

<< When we have had our economy driven backwards by the costs your mates intend to levy on us, and the climate still changes back in its own good time, you and your mates will be the ones to look "absurd". >>

<< If we listen to the greenies, in a few generations hence humans will be back to sitting in dark, cold caves growling over raw meat >>

<< The only thing to be said about wind power is that its apparatus is an ugly blot on the skyline >>

<< Global warming, climate/change, end the world – whatever - will prove to be the biggest hoax perpetrated on mankind since ancient sea voyagers were supposed to drop off the end of the earth if they went too far from home >>

Leigh also claims not to be a xenophobe, but again his posting histories make a liar of him. Indeed, a quick glance reveals not only xenophobia, but racism - particularly against Aborigines.

Why am I not surprised?