"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?