There is nothing more pathetic than seeing someone like David Silkoff whining about people who don’t agree with his point of view: The Herald Sun, those dreadful people contributing to “…dangerous stream of thinking which exists in Australia”; 84% of letter writers who are anti-illegal entrants wanting them returned and, of course, that perennial punching bag, Andrew Bolt.

Silkoff doesn’t actually call for a ban on freedom of speech, but he points out that much of it is “odious”.

He is also too fired up to recognise the fact that fact that Herald Sun and people like Andrew Bolt cater for free-thinking conservatives, and also ignores the fact that, there are more left wing rags around to cater for the intellectually challenged and easily led.

Another silly comment is: “Every single one of them (9 letters) proclaimed outrage at the actions of the refugees.” Dear oh dear! That couldn’t be a popular opinion, surely? There should have been 9, preferably 10, letter writers proclaiming the opposite!

And, how dare Andrew Bolt, in a free press, voice his opinions on the Government’s too soft approach to illegals when he should be spruiking about a “concern that parts of the world are in grave and dangerous states of upheaval…”. The cheek of the man, to be concerned about his own country and not the troubles foreigners have brought on themselves!

“It is not that these opinions were expressed that is worrying, but rather that these opinions are expressed in isolation, with no dissenting voices” moans Silkoff. Perhaps there are no dissenting voices in the wider community; just the few he is appealing to on OLO. He also drags up the old bushfire one, as though Australians are not going to be more concerned for their own people than someone they don’t know. Get real, Mr. Silkoff. Particularly as you believe that opinions contradicting your own are “reactionary” “hateful”.

"There is nothing more pathetic than seeing someone like David Silkoff whining about people who don’t agree with his point of view:"
But there is, way worse... people who try to defend the morally and legally indefensible and miss (thereby prove) the whole point being made in this article.

The article wasn't about asylum seekers per se it was about the lack of objectivity balance in the Herald Sun. It is up to the the dissenters of this article to prove that the argument that the Herald Sun isn't biased..... not the asylum argument.

BTW We as ordinary folk don't know enough about the 'asylum' seekers specifically to make a definitive conclusion.
But that never bothers some.

Good luck... we'll wait...any one know any good jokes we might be here for a while?
Bolt is an entertainer (?) (a written equivalent of a shock jock) a panacea for the intellectually/scientific illiterate and those not being prepared to think.(particularly beyond their own self absorbed interests)
Allen Jones has a similar following.
Personally I long since got over what either says as it never objective,fair,balanced. They solely preach to their own and never engage with others on a meaningful level even if they don't know what they're talking about.
Comments on this site are commonly of the same ilk.

I agree Examinator.
"They solely preach to their own and never engage with others on a meaningful level even if they don't know what they're talking about.
Comments on this site are commonly of the same ilk." You said it. Have a look in the mirror.

".........and also ignores the fact that, there are more left wing rags around to cater for the intellectually challenged and easily led." (Leech)

Really? THAT is a judgment call from someone who is surely intelligent enough to know that ANY media outlet can distort and edit to its heart's content to achieve the results it wants. That such behaviour is NOT reporting the facts, but distorting the facts - IS dangerous.

To defend that, and refer to the 'intellectually challenged'...EXCUSE ME?? Even you Leech, should have the mental capacity to see that many of the 'hang 'em high' contributors to that paper, in making some extraordinary statements and claims are, at the very least, questionable in THEIR intellectual grasp;-yet you defend them!!

Which of course is predictable, because they are doing your dirty work.

Which tends to call into question YOUR intellectual capacity.

Truly; it's hard to take you seriously.

Examinator,

The average cost to get smuggled to Aus is about $10 000. This combined with their skipping of all the other countries in between that would accept them (such as Malaysia) leads to the conclusion that they are neither destitute or running for their lives.

There are many others much more worthy.

That there refugees worthy of our compassion, there is no doubt, but the illegal immigrants are not them.

Excellent article, David, not that it will cut through to the target of your comments, as shown here already.

Queensland's tabloid equivalent, The Courier-Mail, has actually done a surprisingly good job at presenting all sides of the argument. There hasn't at all been a one-sided slant in the letters published. This could of course be interpreted to mean that the average Queenslander is more enlightened than his southern counterpart, but really all it proves is that the editorial team at the CM has aimed to foster fair and balanced debate, rather than stir up fear and hatred as its poor southern cousin has done.

Shadow Minister

"The average cost to get smuggled to Aus is about $10 000."

They don't all pay that much, and many of the ones who do pool together with other families and sell all they own to get one member to safety, usually a younger man. The majority are not wealthy as you imply, but even if they were, that doesn't preclude them from seeking asylum.

"There are many others much more worthy."

Who are we to judge that? Even if we could, how do you suggest we rank them and order their progression through a so-called 'queue'? You obviously know nothing about conditions in refugee camps. There's no queue and no hope of creating one. The ones who get out are either plain lucky or fortunate enough to have the means to bribe their way out. People who are desperate enough to undertake a terrifying trip acros the ocean in a tiny unseaworthy boat and are strong enough to survive it are worthy enough for me, especially keeping in mind many haven't seen ocean before and can't swim.

"That there refugees worthy of our compassion, there is no doubt, but the illegal immigrants are not them.'

Again, who are you to judge? Besides, it's not illegal to seek asylum, so get your terminology right. Incorrectly using the term 'illegal' tends to show you up as ignorant, not suggesting you are of course.

I'd like to remind you of Howard's putative remedy, the "Border Protection Bill 2001" of the TAMPA era, which seems still to resonate for so many.

austlii.org/au/legis/cth/bill/bpb2001212/

Australia has not yet found a day that we can truely call "Australia Day". That day will be the one that finds us able to reconcile past deeds and misdeeds, together with an embrace of the future.

That will not happen whilst heads are in the sand.

Bronwyn,

You are the typical bleeding heart. To answer you:

"They don't all pay that much" Thats why I used the word average.

"People who are desperate enough to undertake a terrifying trip across the ocean in a tiny unseaworthy boat and are strong enough to survive it are worthy enough for me" - A short hop from Indonesia in a fishing boat, Hardly the Kon Tiki. Your "worthy" sights are not very high.

"Again, who are you to judge?" - A tax payer trying not to pay for the entire world's bludgers.

"You obviously know nothing about conditions in refugee camps" - Actually I do, and the illegals with the cash to hire a boat, generally aren't in them, or in any state of squallor.

Your mistake is to associate these asylum seekers with those unfortunates scratching out an existence in a camp. They are perfectly capable of fending for themselves in another nation, just Aus is a better provider.

Great article David. It has been almost amusing seeing the same old screeching from the wingnut brigade. Don't think it is anything new though. It all sounds very, very familiar.

'Freethinking' and 'conservative' are not two words that often go together in this country. It is quite insulting really to equate the mindless following of the silly bleatings of a few with 'conservatism'.

How sad that it is so easy to whip up such a large group of people into a right royal frenzy just by putting together 'boat' and 'asylum seekers'.

Shadow minister, how do you know how much a people smuggler charges? Do you know any? How do you know you are using accurate currency conversion rates?

So many of you call yourself 'conservative'and enemy of the 'left', but how can there be democracy without different views on how to deliver a free democratic society if you don't really trust our political process or our judicial process to deliver? And this so close to ANZAC day.

There is a crisis happening in Sri Lanka, there is an increase in action in Iraq, Afganistan is very unstable and it increasingly looks like Pakistan is teetering on the brink of becoming a failed state. Why on Earth do any of you think that Australia will be immune from this? Little Italy has had some 35,000 asylum seekers. Know how many countries where traversed getting to Italy?

Some of you need to take a chill pill. Have a bit more faith in our processes. We are simply going to have to dilligently process each of these persons on their claims. We're part of the world, we are affected by what happens elsewhere (checked your super lately?) so get over it.

Leigh: << There is nothing more pathetic than seeing someone like David Silkoff whining about people who don’t agree with his point of view >>

Yes there is - it's seeing the usual heartless bastards rallying to the defence of Australia's worst gutter rag and its odious hacks - particularly the execrable Bolt.

Bronwyn, thanks for your excellent response to those who indulge in such self-righteous condescension in speaking of the relative 'worthiness' of refugees or asylum seekers. You beat me to it.

The 'illegal immigrant' does not exist, except if he or she happens to have arrived by plane with a visa. These are the true 'illegals', overstaying their visas and thus remaining illegally in the country. They ARE well heeled and compose 95% of those who seek residence; about half of them fail. Facts like these appear to be of no interest to people like Leigh and Shadow Minister.

Other facts escape Shadow Minister: he/she claims Malaysia would accept refugees and this therefore reveals the economic motives of the asylum seekers. Malaysia does have many 'illegal' migrants, from places like Burma, Aceh, Sri Lanka, but does not recognise them or afford refugees any protection. They work in Malaysia in appalling conditions, without rights and in constant fear. This is from the Amnesty International website:

"Malaysia also does not recognize refugees and asylum seekers. Malaysian law, especially the Immigration Act does not distinguish a person as a refugee or as a person in need of temporary protection. The Act also excludes validity of documents granted by the UNHCR that accord such people with International Protection. Reports over the years witness the Malaysian government clamping down on refugees and asylum seekers and subject them to violent arrest, inhumane and prolonged detention, whipping and forcible deportation. Malaysia also currently deploy the People's Volunteer Corps (RELA), an organization of uniformed part-time volunteers with very wide arrest and seizure powers to hunt down migrants whom they believe as ‘illegal’.

While Malaysia is not a party to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, it is nonetheless bound by the fundamental principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits any person being returned to a country where they face serious human rights violations."

This explains, in part, why 'boat people' arriving in Malaysia are usually moved on to Indonesia via the Straits of Malacca

The truth is that people who talk like Shadow Minister could not care less about the 50 million refugees and displaced persons around the world. I've heard them; some of them are 'friends' and colleagues who presume that you'll agree with them when they snigger conspiratorially about the 'boat people', 'We don't want them'. They don't want migrants from Afghanistan or Iraq no matter how long they waited in some fictitious queue, but they always use 'queue jumping' as their rationale.

'A tax payer trying not to pay for the entire world's bludgers'.
This tells one all one needs to know about the author. No doubt Shadow Minister has a healthy sense of entitlement to the "taxpayers'" magnanimity to go with the nauseating sanctimony.

Great posts Bronwyn, CJ and Rapscallion.

Nothing more to add; just glad to see that you three have said it.

The other posts just make me damned sad.

I'm sure that David Silkoff feels he is a lone compassionate voice in the midst of the uncaring hordes. Such is the Jesus like cross such people bear. Unfortunately David, there is such a thing as democracy and 84% of people do not agree with you.

Unfortunately, you demonize such individuals as hateful yet these are only a small minority of the 84%. The rest are simply smart enough to know that an open door policy is a recipe for disaster. They want the traffic stopped,not the refugees killed.

You say that the Herald Sun holds back a "truly creative, expressive and psychologically healthy Australia". Yet when some express themselves you want to put them back into their box. I guess for you, a creative expressive Australia is having everyone believe what you believe. Now that's what I'd call a Monoculture.

Dear CJ
"rallying to the defence of Australia's worst gutter rag". Care to nominate Australia's best gutter rag?

Dear Blair,

Probably 'The Australian' (aka 'The Opposition Organ') these days. Once upon a time it was a good paper.

I'm confused by the legality (or illegality) of the asylum seekers' actions. In the days before I was an Australian citizen (or even a resident), could I have bought a boat and sailed it into Australian waters without breaking any laws? If so, what would have happened when I arrived at the coast - say, at a jetty in Broome? Could I have stepped off the boat and started a new life perfectly legally? Could I have headed down to the local courthouse or government office and introduced myself, and asked for a visa? Would this have been legal?

I'm not asking these as rhetorical questions. I'm actually asking because, as far as I understood, the asylum seekers who paid people smugglers to get them here by boat are breaking the law. If not international law, then certainly Australian law. Am I wrong here?

Again, I'm not trying to be smart (even if it sounds like I am). I'm trying to suss out how these people's actions are legal.

Shadow Minister,

There is little point in trying to argue with the likes of Bronwyn or any of the open-borders mob. They think that freedom of speech applies to them alone. Like Silkoff, they think that ideas expressed by anyone else are “odious”, “inhumane” and so on; any hysterical superlative they can grab at does the trick, or so they think.

They decide what is “moral” and “defensible”. They even have their own “legal” standards. When all else fails them, they go for the personal insult, suggesting that we are “illiterate”, “ignorant” or any new insult that happens to be fashionable for a short time.

These characters don’t seem to mix with anyone but their sort; and they think that all public opinion is to be found on OLO. They are used to having people agree with them, and vice versa, in their incestuous little groups and, therefore, they come up with shock, horror and indignation when people who have been around for a while and know more than they do about people put up contrary opinions. David Silkoff, the author of this do-gooding and judgemental article says, as an example, “It (opinions not meshing with his) does not marry with the people whom I see and speak with every day at work, or in the community.” He probably holds the floor with his opinions at work and, as in most workplaces, people usually ignore ear-bashers or go along with them in the hope that they will shut up; on the other hand, they might all agree with him, but they are still a very small group. As for his “community”, how many of the 20 odd million in the ‘community’ does he mix with – not those he disagrees with, I’ll wager!

Otokonoko,

Entering any country without permission (correct documentation) is illegal. You will find people trying to convince us that no asylum seeker entering by boat without documentation is illegal. To date, not one of them has produced, in black and white, evidence of their claims. I doubt that they will find it in an outdated convention.

Tucked away at the bottom of the National section of the Herald-Sun online was this little snippet. Seems to indicate that the majority (two thirds) of of Australians don't agree that Rudd has "gone soft" on asylum seekers.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401621-662,00.html

"Just 34 per cent said they would be more comfortable with Malcolm Turnbull and the Opposition in charge of immigration policy."

"...a third said Mr Turnbull was right to say Labor had gone "soft" on asylum seekers. "

Somewhat dents the claim of the rabid "send them back to where they came from" camp on OLO that they represent the majority.

Leigh, Shadow Minister
You have made this over thrashed thread into a personal attack. Leigh was the one who went into egregious superlatives. I merely pointed out the obvious.
The Key point was that the paper was biased (Period).

Own legal system? Are you suggesting we should ignore our obligations under international treaty?Like I said legal obligations. Have you any idea what would happen if we closed the doors? We depend on world good will to trade etc. Think about if we become a pariah what would happen.

My point was clear none of us that aren't in the position to know the status of somebody on a boat until we investigate.
Also note: that Howard's 86% 'Pacific solution' detainees were given refugee status.
Sure there are some who don't qualify but until their tested how do you know which?
And: It isn't illegal to seek asylum under Australian Law.

If my memory is correct the treaty came about to stop the 'ship of shame' happening again. Oh yes by the way many of those Jews were wealthy. Wasn't denying them access Immoral(in defensible)if it was why did the international covenent on refugees get written and why did we sign it?
Just for curiosity how many Jews died because nobody would accept them? I seem to remember reading about thewide spread discrimination of the Jews in The US before WW2. Are we now bleeding hearts for allowing Israel to exist?

BTW: as was pointed out on that show I mentioned many of these people don't have Queues to 'jump'.

I did not call anyone intellectually challenged!
I said Intellectually illiterate. A clear difference look up the word. I wish people would read what I say and in context instead of making misguided inaccurate (yes odious)assumptions.

Further more: I am not in favour of open door But I am against badly thought through policy based on 'god knows what'emotional phobias.
One wonders then if it's just POOR asylum seekers fleeing from ASIAN terror regimes that bother you? That's the only question left.

"........., there are more left wing rags around to cater for>>>>the intellectually challenged<<<< and>>>easily led<<<." (28/4-Leech)


".....When all else fails them, they go for the personal insult, suggesting that we are “illiterate”, “ignorant” or any new insult that happens to be fashionable for a short time." (29/4-Leech)
_______________________

You don arf make I larf Leech!

Rapscallion, with regards your personal attack.

There are 100s of millions of people desperate to migrate from places of tyranny and desperate circumstances. Are they all worthy of our protection, I have no doubt that most of them would qualify.

If anyone has any doubt as to how many asylum seekers would come if immigration were relaxed needs only to look at the situation in South Africa where there is no free medical care or social security, only a chance of a better life. The influx of 10 to 12 million illegal immigrants with little education or skills has put the economy and security of SA in a terrible situation.

10m illegals would devastate this country and with 400m just a short boat ride away, this is not an impossible scenario. The efficiency of the naval interceptors and the relative low success rate (about 12% from what I read) is the major deterrent.

The aprox 200 000 legal refugees from the past 20 years cost the country about $2b p.a. (social security on 50%) or about $200 per tax payer p.a. to support.

While I am happy to do this and support the few worthy souls that have been accepted, I am not happy to double, triple or quadruple this, and according to the polls, neither are the majority of Austalia.

So Rapscallion, I ask you not to presume to know my feelings, and on behalf of the vast majority of Australians I urge you to shelve your sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude and let the light of reality shine into the dark recesses of your mind.

"So Rapscallion, I ask you not to presume to know my feelings, and on behalf of the vast majority of Australians I urge you to shelve your sanctimonious, holier than thou attitude and let the light of reality shine into the dark recesses of your mind.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 29 April 2009 3:35:39 PM"
___________________

By gee Rapscallion!! Quake in yer boots!

This is 'on behalf of the vast majority of Australians' no less. Take note about those dark recesses, after all it IS coming from a Shadow Minister.

(I reckon it's the lack of vitamin D...).

They have a Minister for everything nowadays, don't they?

Examinator,
Well argued!

It is rather frightening that the influence of the
strident right-wing newspaper columnists like -
Andrew Bolt appears to have grown. We no longer seem
to have a "big read," of intelligent press. Only
papers that prey on deeply ingrained habits of
thinking - old prejudices barely contested in mainstream
media. The knot of "brave," Liberal MPs not really
proposing any changes to the old system of mandatory
detention, not even seeking to temper its excesses.

Shame on them!

Ginx,
You're the Minister of Kindness!

I'm quaking, Ginx!

Personal attack, Shadow Min? Twaddle. You're skewered by your own words.

"Are they all worthy of our protection, I have no doubt that most of them would qualify.... the few worthy souls that have been accepted."
- There you go again: pontifical sanctimonious judgment. This was dealt with way back. You still sound like god hectoring St Peter at the pearly gates.

Many nations live in dire poverty under hopeless governments, largely left to their fate. Who are we to tell "400m just a short boat ride away" that they are to stay home or go home? If indeed there were that many desperate people slow-boating to Australia, how the hell could they be stopped? Are you not painting a scenario that a return to Howard's draconian measures (only partially mitigated by Rudd), or any other measures for that matter, could not possibly prevent? This scare-mongering scenario is most unlikely; but if it ever were to eventuate the idea of this tiny nation of over-consuming “taxpayers” ordering them to 'get back in the queue' just beggars belief. Still, I must admit, “400m” asking themselves, ‘Why should they have it all while we suffer?’ would be not completely implausible, nor impertinent, any consideration of “worthiness” aside.

"I am not happy to double, triple or quadruple this, and according to the polls, neither are the majority of Austalia (sic)."
- Has the Australian public been properly polled to see if they would “double, triple or quadruple” it? Don't point to a Herald Sun phone poll, either. Your postage stamp calculations take no account of contributions to society or tax paid by those in employment, nor the amount saved by scrapping the ‘Pacific Solution’. WHY are you not happy to increase this arbitrary amount? The amount you quote is dwarfed beside that wasted by “taxpayers” on middle class welfare - private health rebates, private school funding, negative gearing, baby bonuses, family tax allowances, home buyers' grants etc etc. which lead to 40% of Australians paying no net tax at all.
Oh, right… they’re “bludgers” and you’re a righteous “taxpayer”!

Rapscallion,

You set yourself up as an authority on the issue "This was dealt with way back. You still sound like god hectoring St Peter at the pearly gates."

Your fatuous unsupported opinion does not mean the issue is dealt with or closed.

"Don't point to a Herald Sun phone poll, either."

Try googling australia polls immigration as I did and the results give from 55% to 80% in favour of the existing immigration policy. Whilst most are not professional polls the total result gives no doubt as to how most of Aus feels.

"This scare-mongering scenario is most unlikely"

The best comparison I can give is with Canada (with more difficult access), which has lax immigration laws and who now have between 200 000 and 500 000 undocumented illegal immigrants many of whom are unemployable.

Perhaps you would deign to impart some of your vast experience to show why the liberal and labor governments are wrong and you are right. To date your flatulent sniping is completely unsupported.

As to your 40% zero net tax payers, most of these are single persons earning less than $20k p.a. the very pool you wish to add to with the illegal immigrants. Increasing the numbers on welfare means the money has to come from somewhere, and the most likely source is reduced benefits to those that actually need it.

The more you earn the more tax you pay and less benefits you get. The middle class subsidies are a pittance compared with what the lower earners get, and only a fraction of what they pay in tax. From your political views I could take a wild guess that reducing the benefits to the middle class would not affect you, which is why you are so self righteous in offering it up.

Words are cheap, evidence has actually currency.

Examinator and Ginx,

I've made several attempts to decipher your illiterate gibberings, on this occasion and on many others, but I've made no headway at all. I assume that there are a few here who understand your peculiar attempts at communication, but I'm not one of them.

So, don't waste your pearls of wisdom on me; I haven't a clue what you are on about. I thought the lack of any response from me would have given you the hint - it usually works with other idiots - but you seem to be special cases.

Okay maybe it is my warped sense of humour but whenever I hear people defending the Herald-Sun and The Australian and their stance on so called 'economic' refugees I often wonder what they make of the newspaper's proprietor.

Here is a bloke who has rejected his Australian citizenship for a foreign one purely for economic reasons, indeed why shouldn't he be thought of as an economic refugee?

In any other circumstances his actions would have brought the ire of the Bolt's of this world down upon his head, yet not a peek or even a pique.

Damn, I wonder why that would be?

"Try googling australia polls immigration as I did and the results give from 55% to 80% in favour of the existing immigration policy. Whilst most are not professional polls the total result gives no doubt as to how most of Aus feels."

Shadow Minister, I took your advice and Googled "Australia polls immigration" (but without the quotation marks).

On the first three pages, only one of the polls returned the results you claim, and that was the Herald Sun phone poll, quoted on The Australian Protectionist Party website. Back to square one.

One poll came in at an even 15% for all the options given, from a staggering sample of 10 participants. Hardly representative.

Another examined the poll published in The Australian (which, as you know, is proudly pro-Liberal and anti-immigration), and found, "Some 46 per cent of Australians say they trust Mr Rudd and Labor to handle border protection. Just 34 per cent said they’d be more comfortable with Malcolm Turnbull and the coalition in charge of immigration policy."

"The poll also found 45 per cent of voters agree with Mr Rudd’s argument that the influx is due to global security and economic ‘push factors’ rather than more relaxed border protection."

And the Liberals.net website, at the top of page 1, precedes its polls section with the words, "Sadly for the ALP, many of the traditional blue collar ALP voters are in favour of such policies and switching support to Mr Howard". So pathetic I almost cried.

But maybe I didn't look hard enough. Can you direct me to these polls which returned such strong anti-immigration sentiments?

Oh, and I think the ADF disbanded the flatulent sniper regiment. Too easy to spot with thermal imaging!

"Examinator and Ginx,

I've made several attempts to decipher your illiterate gibberings, on this occasion and on many others, but I've made no headway at all. I assume that there are a few here who understand your peculiar attempts at communication, but I'm not one of them.

So, don't waste your pearls of wisdom on me; I haven't a clue what you are on about. I thought the lack of any response from me would have given you the hint - it usually works with other idiots - but you seem to be special cases.
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 30 April 2009 10:59:26 AM" (Quote: Leech)
_______________________________

This is so much appreciated!! Now I see your problem!

There is much mental conflict when one refers to 'illiterate gibberings' as 'pearls of wisdom'.

I can see clearly that this has caused a confused mental state. (I saw it a while ago, but was waiting for confirmation from you. It IS a delicate matter after all).

Given this, I intend to have greater understanding of the basis for your opinions, and will be gentle with you.

Have a nice day.

Oh, come on, Vile Ginx! Why would Leigh be so abusive if he didn't have a convincing argument?

That's how it works, isn't it?

Shadow Minister, your latest foray is pathetic.

Your nonsense about the poll results has been taken apart by Sancho. But I await the poll that shows the majority of Australians agree with you on how much they'd be prepared to spend on refugees.

"The best comparison I can give is with Canada (with more difficult access), which has lax immigration laws and who now have between 200 000 and 500 000 undocumented illegal immigrants many of whom are unemployable."

- That is a VERY wide range; no one really knows how many 'illegal immigrants' there are. Far fewer, though than in the USA! They are generally not in the same category as the ones coming here by boat; they are mostly from Europe, Eastern Europe, Mexico/Central America, Ireland and the USA. These are people, by and large who overstay visas, like the vast majority (94%) who remain illegally in Australia. Land access is not more difficult, though, with a huge US border. You really don't know what you're talking about, but are just casting around for some huge, shock-horror numbers to bandy around for no other purpose than to scare-monger. Yet you refuse to address the visa-overstay phenomenon.

"Perhaps you would deign to impart some of your vast experience to show why the liberal and labor governments are wrong and you are right."

- Laughable. Much sarcasm, no intellect. What disagreement have I expressed with the present government? The previous government was wrong to spend billions on a 'Pacific Solution' that was inhumane, and to incarcerate children for long/indefinite periods etc. Polls YOU mentioned actually show that a significant majority of Australians agree with MY view of Rudd's changes! As for how much it might cost? Enough to afford humane treatment until they are either granted residency or returned to their original countries. The social security cost will be insignificant. BTW, that should be 42.2% paying no net tax (Sept, 08). As a righteous 'taxpayer', you will be in a minority of the population within 10 years, according to some economists, if indeed you pay any.

Shadow Minister: "The middle class subsidies are a pittance compared with what the lower earners get, and only a fraction of what they pay in tax."

- Nonsense. Some estimate the cost of 'Middle class welfare' at %50bn pa - equal to or more than social security. It's a huge political problem: while the cost cannot be sustained (makes the refugee hordes pale into insignificance) Rudd knows that the hand-out mentality has permeated every sector of the electorate.

I thought of you and Leigh and fellow-travellers when I read this in an article by John Watson ('Fears distorting reality') in The Age today:

'Princeton professor of psychology and neuroscience Susan Fiske offers an insight into why Australians couldn't help but rally to the aid of homeless bushfire victims — "people like us" — while remaining strikingly indifferent to the 100,000 or so people who are homeless on any given night. Her research suggests that people of low status register differently in the brain. "The part of the brain that normally activates when you are thinking about people is surprisingly silent when you're looking at homeless people. It's a kind of neural dehumanisation." The normal neural response is only restored, she said, when people are asked to think about what soup the homeless person might like to eat, which requires them to think about them as a person with human wants and needs. Similarly, when we are confronted by cases that break the conventions of the stereotype, such as the former executive who finds himself homeless, our empathy is engaged.

The power of stereotypes would also explain the irrational difference in our attitudes to asylum seekers who arrive by boat and those who arrive by air. Fewer than 40 per cent of "aeroplane people", who vastly outnumber "boat people", succeed in their asylum claims, but their arrival causes no great public concern or resentment. More than 90 per cent of boat people have proven to be genuine refugees, yet the Howard government's claim that the "threat" amounted to a "national emergency" was readily accepted. Boat people fit the stereotype.'

Ginx, psycho, I like your style. qck qck!

Is this the home of the Brittish Natinal Party?

Well done Sancho, you took my challenge and completely stuffed it up.

I didn't ask you who the public preferred, just what their opinion on the immigration policy. Perhaps you could point me in the direction of the polls that indicate that Australians want to relax immigration policy, scrap detention etc.

The same poll that indicated that 45% believed in the push factor also said "Essential Research says responses followed party lines" which means that 55% including a significant portion of labor don't think its the only reason.On a wider note, polls by Monash university over several decades show that attitudes to immigration generally are > 90% to reducing immigration.

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv4n3/betts.htm

Rapscallion,

your comment "Some estimate the cost of 'Middle class welfare' at %50bn pa - equal to or more than social security" is pitiful.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2008-09/content/overview/html/overview_40.htm

Social Security = $102bn (somewhat more than 50)
Total budget = $320bn
Income tax rev = $127bn

The only way I can get to $50bn for middle class welfare would be to include all the family benefits, medicare benefits, pensions, Schooling etc for the 50% of the population earning more than the median.

The pillock of an acedemic that you quoted is deliberately inflating the figures to push a political agenda. You seem to lack the intellect to differentiate between political fluff and substance, or emotion and reality, which is the theme running through your posts.

Ginx,

You poor fellow. When I referred to your "pearls of wisdom", I was being sarcastic, but you couldn't even see it

Leigh and Shadowminister, are you as livid about the tens of thousands 'aeroplane people' (love that term Raps) as you are about the dozens 'boat people'?

If yes, why do you feel differently?

And what about the thousands of 'students' who come here, pay for their courses, then stay on to fill jobs that Australian born kids somehow have not been able to do. This is a well used back door for wealthy persons to gain residency status.

For instance: Aussie kids have to jump through very, very high hoops to get into medicine, but for some reason, poor verbal English is of little hindrance to get full-time employment for an overseas educated doctor. How does that work? And precisely why is that of benefit to Australia?

People like you should look with a bit less emotion at the kind of immigrants we allow to come here. Why we need immigrants and how they are selected.

"....When I referred to your "pearls of wisdom", I was being sarcastic, but you couldn't even see it
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 1 May 2009 11:13:55 AM"

.....and when I referred to gibberish/ and your sarcastic Pearler comment....I was being sarcastic and YOU couldn't see it...

Poor fellow.

(Your turn bubby).

1 server error.
2 " "

I understand your defensiveness, Shadow Minister. You assumed no-one would take up your challenge, and if they did, that the polls would endorse your opinion because you're part of the silent majority, ignored by the liberal media, et cetera.

But when you actually did the search you found you really ARE in the minority.

Your earlier post implies that the net is teeming with opinion polls indicating Australians want tougher immigration rules. I ask you again to link to some, and to explain why you haven't provided them already.

What you HAVE cited is not a poll, but an academic social study by Katharine Betts that draws on polls from the past 30 years.

Betts' article cites poll data up to 1996. Is it your belief that a 13-year-old poll is representative of public opinion in 2009? Or that the particulars of the immigration debate haven't changed in the last 13 years? It's an interesting study, but I haven't looked at each poll table in it. Can you please link to any that indicate "attitudes to immigration generally are > 90% to reducing immigration"? I'd like to see the specific questions and sample groups.

The Australian's poll still provides the only current data on Australian attitudes to immigration and, unlike the hypothetical polls we're waiting for you to supply, it was conducted by a professional polling agency.

That poll, taken in April this year, indicates that the majority of Australians agree with the Labor party's 2008 platform, which includes relaxed visa policies and substantial reforms to mandatory detention, announced in 2008: http://www.alp.org.au/media/0708/msimmc300.php

And why did you quote the party-lines split? It's neither relevant nor beneficial to your argument. An Australian who wants immigration reform is an Australian who wants immigration reform. Or are you arguing that the majority of Australians don't really count because their vote ended up with Labor?

So, do you still maintain that "the total result gives no doubt as to how most of Aus feels"? If so, there's no doubt that most of Aus disagrees with you.

Anansi,

I agree with you on the government and university practice of selling visas to overseas students whose English is barely good enough to work in Australia, let alone to adequately to pass university courses without a lot of help from someone. I agree about the affects this has on Australian students.

I agree about people overstaying their visas, after having arrived legally.

I don’t believe that we need any immigrants.

I have given my views on these matters when they have arisen on OLO.

I have, in response to this article, given my views on illegal immigrants. So, what is the point you are trying to make?

Sancho,

"A poll by Australia's Sky TV News Friday found 83 percent of Australia's believe the country's border protection policy should now be hardened in the wake of the boat people deaths."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/5505208
http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2002/3506/

In spite of all your crowing I have yet to see any independent survey to indicate that Australians want the policy relaxed. The posts you show a slim majority don't feel that tightening them is necessary.

Your link to an ALP media statement is what? unbiased indication that the ALP is doing a great job? Pathetic.

I have to admit, ever since the Tampa affair, I have been disagreeably surprised that so many Australians, sons and daughters of ANZACS, should be so panty wetting terrified of a handful of refugees in leaky boats.
What is it you are so afraid of?
I guarantee in no time at all they will be indoctrinated into our precious culture, swigging stubbies, barbying prawns and looking forward to the long weekend like the best of us.
And if not them, certainly their children.
I suggest we reduce our migrant intake (which depresses demand for skilled workers, and pay increases) and increase our refugee intake -just because it is the right thing to do.