One Nation: No point in anyone here feeling hostility to the indigenous (Aboriginal) people because this is unquestionably their home. But when I talk of "host culture", I'm talking of the 98% of Australians who are not Aboriginal. I'm 4th generation British-Australian. And I react with irritation at your politically correct reference to "Invasion Day". I can't think of any permanent colonizing experience that hasn't disadvantaged those there before, but that is what history is. "Invasion Day" trashes the great achievements of our European culture in this land, and that irritates the hell out of me. We don't live in the past, we do in the present and what we do now (including BY and for the Aborigines) can make a better future. No point in wallowing in the past, and being dysfunctional because of it.

That's the tragedy of Islam - it closed the gates of ijtihad (independent critical thought) about 800 years ago and has gone downhill ever since. Result? Dysfunctionality, inability to engage with and compete in the modern world, impotent rage, violence, blaming of everyone but itself as a culture. Not a pretty sight, NOT welcome here. I'm not racist, I just like living in the 21st century, where we respect human rights (including of women) and diversity and critical thought and tolerance. When Islam (ie the modern face of it - Wahhabi, Salafi, the pox emanating from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) becomes tolerant, I'll think about tolerating it.

Refugees from Burma, China, wherever are welcome if they're genuine refugees. But NO FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM. Why import a mental, economic and cultural disease?

Banjo,

The latest report from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees says asylum applications in Australia increased by 19 per cent last year, from 3980 to 4750.

How many came by boat?

Actually, 179 or fewer than 4 per cent.

This year the number of boat people is already higher, at 221. But it still is tiny compared with those coming by air. And total refugee flows to Australia are much smaller than those experienced by other countries.

The UNHCR statistics show the Australian increase is part of a global trend. Refugee numbers started rising again in 2007 and last year total asylum applications in industrialised countries went up by 12 per cent. The increase for Australia of 19 per cent was above the average but much smaller than Finland's 181 per cent.

There is no mystery about the reason for the increase. The world is becoming less safe.

Richard Towle, UNHCR regional representative for Australia, says: "The places traditionally looked to for refuge such as Pakistan are becoming increasingly unstable and people quite rapidly are having to look elsewhere.

Does our outrage extend to those Sri Lankan boat people or those who came from New Guinea or is it reserved for Middle Easterners only?

There is little difference between the various ideological thoughts on this subject, they all fail to see the reality of Australia and the worlds situation in regard to human population. Ideologists see nothing beyond what they want to see and refuse to accept anything outside their beliefs, no matter what they are.

It's been pointed out the fragility of Australia's ability to support a growing human population. Considering a small indigenous population survived for about 50 thousand years in this climate successfully, yet it's taken the ideological human less than 200 years to reduce it's productivity and environment to almost zero. I'd like to know how those supporting unfettered immigration and open borders will cope with our dying country and what their remedies are for supporting refugees, who are of no use to this country, just a burden on it's economy, freedoms, security and resources.

It matters not where people come from if they are seeking asylum, what matters is the ideology and approach to life they bring with them and expect to be accepted by their host country. Even though that same ideology is the cause of their problems. There is nothing logical in that, nor is it rational to fill your house in a desert with strangers, whose beliefs and ways of life are causing so much misery in the places they escaped from. Yet when they get here, they quickly express hate for our ways of life and secular culture, demanding it change to accommodate them and their suppressive cultures.

An article like this shows how stupid humans are and how self destructive they become when their hoped for illusions fail to materialise. Maybe that's why sensible people don't want any more people here, we have enough fools determined to destroy rational life as it is, do we really want more of the same, until our country is denuded and we end up like the majority of the world, in growing ideological turmoil and chaos

rache,
What you fail to mention, and I suggest deliberately, is that nearly all those illegals that arrive by air are sent away again within 72 hours of arrival. So the actual number of illegal arrivals that gain entry by air is very small. The 50,000 so often referred to, by advocates for illegal entry, are mainly tourists that have simply overstayed and they leave of their own accord, to be replaced by other tourist overstayers. Considering the large number of tourists we get the overstayers are small and still spending money while here.

Sure there are a few here long term illegally but unless they can get hold of false tax file numbers and Medicare cards they are vulnerable to unscrupulous employers, etc and I feel sorry for their situation but they are criminals.

The ones arriving by boat want to get picked up by our border patrols . They are aware that after a couple of months detention they will be given permanant residence visas curtasy of the Rudd government and then they can bring the rest of their family here legally by 747. That is the reason for the increase in illegals since August last year, when the changes came into being.

By the way they are classified as 'illegals' or 'unlawfull entrants' and do not become 'asylum seekers' untill they apply for asylum.

As i said it is all on the website of our immigration Dept

<< By the way they are classified as 'illegals' or 'unlawfull entrants' >>

More lies from Banjo. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship website refers to "illegal entry" and "unlawful entrants". There is no such classification as "illegals", as Banjo persistently and mendaciously claims.

From the official website:

<< Overview

Australia's Refugee and Humanitarian Program offers protection to asylum seekers who have entered Australia, either without a visa or as temporary entrants, and who are found to be owed Australia's protection under the United Nations 1951 Convention and 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (the Refugees Convention) and relevant Australian laws.

Protection visa

Asylum seekers who are found to be owed Australia's protection under the Refugees Convention, and who satisfy health, character and security requirements, are granted a permanent Protection visa. >>

http://www.immi.gov.au/refugee/seeking_protection.htm

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. As I've said before, I'd be quite happy if Australia abolished its 'skilled immigration' program completely, in favour of continuing to take a fair and reasonable number of refugees as defined above.

I think that the 'island fortress mentality' is mostly a psychological hangover from the old 'Yellow Peril' and 'White Australia' paranoia that used to characterise the bad old days of yesteryear.

The disappointing thing about van Vleits article is its dishonesty.

We are told:
1) --“ The United States of America, an immigrant nation like Australia, has an estimated 11.5 million illegals … People there worked out a long time that immigration makes the new world tick - economically and socially”
Note its two barbs i) “PEOPLE there worked out”…(does that mean all the US people? or, is it a lesser percentage than all? is, it even a majority of US people? the intent is clearly to have us believe that Americans en masse accept immigration, in all its forms), & ii) this all happed “A LONG TIME AGO” the implication being Aussies (leastways, those who differ with Mr van Vleit’s stance on immigration/refugees) are slow on the uptake!

2) --“Another contrast to our COMPARATIVELY benign predicament is the third world country Pakistan which hosts more than 2 million refugees …”
One of the first things you learn in primary school is you can only compare like things: apple & apples – NOT apples( Australia ) & lemons ( Pakistan).
i) Does Pakistan house, clothe and feeds all those illegal’s?
ii) Does Pakistan grant these illegals -or even a sizable percentage of them- citizenship? the answer to both, NYET!
It’s a faux comparison/argument designed to shame those who don’t know the background facts.

3) – “The Government needs to begin incorporating the needs of disadvantaged migrants and refugees in the social inclusion agenda” .This is the closest you’ll get to any mention of the costs of immigration by those in van Vliet’s camp and, the solution, sweet talk for – social engineering i.e. quotas, special entry: an ethnic grading system.

4) --“NATIONAL LEADERSHIP around issues of multiculturalism, cultural diversity, non-discrimination and anti-racism IS STILL REQUIRED…”
Translation: a select few should tell the rest what they should think on these issues.

And this is from one of the men who would be in the vanguard of an Australian republic---heaven forbid!