Excellent article - hear, hear! Dog-whistling about asylum seekers is a strategy that worked extremely well for the Coalition in the past, and in their current desperate straits they're again seeking to attract support from the racist underbelly of the Australian electorate.

Undoubtedly more than a few of them will once again peddle their hateful tripe in response to this timely article.

What is often forgotten in these forums is that there is a quota on how many asylum seekers are permitted entry into the country per year.

For every immigrant that comes in illegally and costs the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars before being accepted, there is another applicant, probably far more deserving, that falls off the list.

The total number remains the same.

The average cost per boat person is in the order of $10 000 which he pays, and $200 000 per person for detention and processing.

This money could feed and clothe 400 people for a year in the most desperate areas.

While the boat people's situation is poor compared to Australian standards, it is rich compared to those whose places they have purchased.

The boat people are far from the innocent victims portrayed in this post.

Well said Shadow Minister, totally agree with your comments.

Besides these illegal immigrants taking the place of an already more deserving, processed refugee, who may be considered a better prospect of integrating into the main stream Australian culture.

The on-going costs of the illegals to the Australian Taxpayers in housing,medical,welfare,education,legal and family re-unions for people who probably don't really like us or our way of life, and who's off-springs will more than likely be part of an "ethnic gang" causing havoc on the streets of our cities in the future is a no brainer.
Olbe

Olbie says;

"The on-going costs of the illegals to the Australian Taxpayers in housing,medical,welfare,education,legal and family re-unions for people who probably don't really like us or our way of life, and who's off-springs will more than likely be part of an "ethnic gang" causing havoc on the streets of our cities in the future is a no brainer."

What a load of rubbish. If they are asylum seekers and granted refugee status, as has just occurred today for those on the boat that was burnt, they are not illegals! It sounds like the ghosts of John Howard past? I had hoped we had moved on...

I would also suggest that refugees may potentially make better citizens than do normal immigrants as they have risked more to come to our country and on what possible evidence can you say they don't like us or our way of life?

I am not privy to the data but I doubt that the acceptance of "boat refugees" reduces the number of refugees taken from camps around the world...I would like to see evidence that there is a quota before accepting Shadow Minister's claim.

The cost of refugees to Australia is trivial in global terms as there is an international crisis in refugee movements. Part of the reason that historically the detention costs were so high was the obscene delay in being processed.

Be positive, it provides work for Christmas Island residents and gives the Navy some practice.

Further to Olbe's remarks, the "ethnic gangs" he refers to are presumably of Lebanese extraction and I would venture to suggest that these off springs' parents were not refugees but bona fide immigrants.

So where is the relationship to illegals?

Peter King,

Perhaps you should educate yourself before you comment:

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=NrYcbB2JxBMC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=australia+refugee+quota&source=bl&ots=oxjZs7xrlG&sig=YAJ3LPk8rdzDaW7xp9NjB1Tl9kw&hl=en&ei=kLjSStvBEpLmswP2ydXvCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCIQ6AEwBg&safe=active#v=onepage&q=australia%20refugee%20quota&f=false

"Julia Gillard, believes the number of refugees being accepted by Australia is right for now.

During the election campaign both major parties rejected the suggestion of increasing Australia's intake of humanitarian refugees above the annual cap of 12,000.

We're at 12,000 now, I think that's probably about right for now."

The detainees have entered the country (immigrated) illegally and until they are given legal status they are illegal immigrants.

*But if they were not really needy why did they bother to come? Adjusting to life in Australia is not easy, it can be a lonely country without family, and jobs are hard to find.*

What a lot of tosh! I remind the author that tens of thousands
of Africans from Ghana, Nigeria and similar countries are taking
far larger risks to get to Europe, for one good reason - money.

Yes, life in the third world is tough, hundreds of millions would
love our cushy lifestyle, they are willing to risk life and limb
for that lifestyle.

Millions of Mexicans stream over the US border for the same thing,
money.

There is no way to ascertain whether these illegals are genuine refugees or economic migrants.

Note that the Government has never revealed to the public just how they make a decision.(that includes the previous Government) People with no documents can and do say anything to get themselves a cosy berth on the dole - if they never get a job, they will still be better off than they were where they came from.

Anyone who thinks that we are not allowing opportunist bludgers into the country with our non-existent border protection is a fool.

Gee Susan whats going on? Remember the Liberals lost the last election? We now have a Labour Government, remember!
Your shrill diatribe sounds just like the ABC who spend hours a day endlessly discussing the Liberal opposition rather than directing analysis on the Government of Australia.
Is this just another lefty, labour rant or do you have a point? If so you have to address it to the Government.
By the way do not take your views out into the outside world as you will really get upset.

Australia had an effective policy when the current opposition were in government.

The reasonably disciplined line of offshore detention centres did what it was intended to do – protect Australia’s security from attempted illegal landings, intended to circumvent Australia’s legal migration laws.

It is the ambivalence of the incumbent government swill which has presented the sense of opportunism to those who pretend to be refugees and embark on perilous journeys, in inadequate craft supplied by people smugglers, risking their own lives and those of Australian defense personnel.

The sooner the vacillating whimps who parade as the current federal government restate the policies of the previous coalition government, the sooner we will see the demise of this obscene traffic

John Howard and his policies were thrown out in the last election and most of the community has moved on from the name calling. The dinosaurs on this forum should move on too. Can anyone really defend the ridiculous comments the Opposition has been making? Or are you defending your own prejudice. Go and meet a refugee who has come by boat, imagine yourself in that situation and then check how you feel. Maybe nothing, but it's worth a try.

"Australia is not being 'flooded' with asylum seekers from the north and the numbers are still nowhere near the thousands who arrived by boat under the Coalition’s watch"

The key word being 'still'!

The absurd dilution of border-protection policy by Rudd has seen a considerable increase in the number of arrivals, which is apparently expected to increase considerably further.

The reason for this is predominantly the weakening of the policy, NOT the push factors!

What about our offshore refugee efforts Susan?

They don't rate a mention in you article. What about advocating that Australia put a whole lot more effort into helping the most needy refugees come to this country, and into addressing the causal factors of refugeeism....and into STOPPING the currently small but potentially large ad-hoc movement of asylum seekers / less needy refugees / illegal economic migrants or would-be migrants!

This policy of facilitating a small trickle of boat people coming to our northern shores, and treating them in a manner that will lead to a large increase in the number of arrivals, is just crackers.

CLEARLY, the best thing to do is to close it down and divert our energies and monies to where it is really needed and where it will be a whole lot more efficiently spent.

We should be doubling our refugee intake and increasing our international aid expenditure to at least 0.7% of GDP. This is the sort of thing that really counts.

The basic points of this issue are not addressed by Susan.

First what constitutes adequate border security and secondly who should decide the origins of our annual quota of humanitarian immigrants.

So tell us Susan what is adequate and reasonable border protection and who should decide who are our humanitarian immigrants?

I think you should express your choice instead of simply critising those who demonstrate the guts to express theirs.

Go on show some courage so we can all assess the reasons for your position which at this point simply appears to be anti Howards border protection and advocating people smugglers deciding our annual humanitarian intake.

A legitimate Asylum Seeker's primary concern is the preservation of their person. Accordingly, they may come however they please and in the instance of some of them, it is simply not a realistic consideration to stop by a local consulate or embassy to file an application, assuming the individuals concerned even understand this legal requirement.

There are a lot of stateless people in Indonesia and what happens in the case of some of them is that they simply purchase a new Indonesian identity from corrupt officials. So from say a Chinese name, they adopt an Indonesian name say. As for their past, whose to say? Though I can say honestly that one such individual has confided in us in regards to this and has also traveled to Australia.

Whilst these documents i.m.o. would be unlikely to stand up to internal Indo scrutiny, I doubt that inquiries by Australia would render any confessions of corruption from local officials. Now that Jakarta has defanged their Anti-Corruption commission and handed back investigative powers to the notoriously corrupt police, matters appear to have deteriorated in this area.

So, what would you rather have, a stateless person with bogus i.d. coming in even for a holiday under the pretense of legitimacy with money in their pockets, or someone on a rickety boat?

Of course, the boat person is intercepted by our water security, who are already on the payroll and gaining great experience with real life security situations, though at a safe distance, who then inflict the full security and legal apparatus on all applicants, plus at least temporary incarceration for observation.

It goes with out saying that there are lots of illegitimates looking for a better life and also a few that represent a security risk, but also I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are also a few who bring in very valuable information.

Every state that participates in the Asylum protocols share this burden knowing that there are people who abuse the system. It is a given, not an opp for b.s. and spin.

Baxter “Go and meet a refugee who has come by boat, imagine yourself in that situation and then check how you feel. Maybe nothing, but it's worth a try.”

Why do you not do that and then go and meet a refugee in a camp in the horn of Africa and that real refugee that sorry, ,some one with more money than him bought his place in the limited quota…before you suggest to anyone else what they should do.

“The dinosaurs on this forum should move on too”

No, if we did that we would take our wisdom with us and leave the likes of you completely clueless

Turning Australia into a repository for every stateless person on the planet is not a solution.

Addressing the reason for what makes them refugees is… however that requires military intervention and so many left wing whoosies find that as unacceptable as locking up illegal immigrants until their credentials are proven.

Imho with so much human distress coming out of Africa – the whole continent should be re-colonised.

Yes Susan, the dog whistle is out again. Where does all this hatred of different people under extreme duress come from? Is it part of their DNA? Do they learn it as part of their potty training, or suckling at the breast? Of course, when Africans get here from the hell holes of the camps in Africa their treatment by this ilk is much the same. Thus, you get the Andrew Bolt's and Alan Jones' of this world with their fog horns out.

Having worked closely on the Pacific Solution, and having seen the perfunctory violations of human rights on the Coalition's watch, the one good thing about the Howard years was that it brought this 'interesting' bunch out into the open, away from the dark corners of the body politic. We can now expose their invariably simple minded postures to the bright light of day and subject their thinking to rational analysis. Some of the usual suspects are on display here, sprouting their nonsense on a complex subject they will never know much about, as knowledge does not really serve their purpose.

The standard line of the hate merchants is that everyone who supports the entry of asylum seekers is soft in the head - credulous buffoons who put human rights ahead of national interest considerations. It seems, in their small minds, that boat people are all economic refugees prepared to leave their cultural moorings, families and friends and everything familiar for the good life in our Islam demonizing, minorities marginalizing utopia. A little while back Senator Scullion came out with the enlightened view that our bio-security is under threat by boat people. [In good Southern US accent]... you guys that think like Nigel - that doggy don't huuunt, & keep taking the pills

*that boat people are all economic refugees prepared to leave their cultural moorings, families and friends and everything familiar*

Sheesh Kraken, you are no Einstein lol, you really arn't. Or perhaps
still tied to mommy's apron strings?

I remind you that everyday normal migrants all over the world,
regularly leave family, friends and everything familiar, to live
in other parts of the world.

Whilst this for you, with your limited perspective of life, sounds
incredibly difficult, I assure you that for millions of everyday
people its no big deal.

When your bleeding heart brigade start to focus on all refugees
in camps around the world and not just those who can afford to
pay the bribes for a long trip, I will take some notice.

If somebody is living in a refugee camp, without 2c to their name,
we can assume that they are in fact genuine refugees. That is
certainly not the case with those sailing here, who need a bit
of money, a bit of determination and the ability to tell a good
story.

Personally my sympathies lie with those in camps. If that is
beyond you, that is your problem and not my problem.

Kraken,

I assume that your flatulent diatribe is in lieu of actually having a rational position. None of your invective addresses any of the issues I raised earlier.

No one is arguing that the many boat people don't have a valid reason for application for asylum. However with 20% of the world below the poverty line, and vast areas of conflict, this probably applies to at least 1 billion people on the planet.

With the refugee quota at about 12000, the boat people have paid about $10 000 to jump the queue to the top of the list (in the 100s of thousands) displacing those who have a far greater claim.

The issue is not whether to accept refugees, but whether we take the most deserving or the least.

Being poor does not mean you qualify as a refugee under the convention. If you want people migrating to Australia becasue they don't have 2 cents to their name then stand up for the poor. Not much informed opinion about refugees here. The dog whistles and up they rise. Even Philip Ruddock has arisen today to take up the cry in the media.

I'd suggest a few people should take a look at this website and refresh themselves on the definition of a refugee.

http://www.unhcr.org.au/basicdef.shtml#def01

The important point in my opinion is having a "fear of persecution".

Once those refugees have left their own country and are no longer in fear of persecution, they cease to be considered refugees.

Those soft hearted souls who would open our borders to all boat people describe the pained journey that some "refugees" take in order to reach Australian borders insinuating that adds to the seriousness of their plight.

I have a very simple answer. Stay in Indonesia or any of the other 8 countries they have travelled through where they are not under fear of persecution. They choose to make that journey based on the prosperity that Australia offers.

I hope that I am ever under real "fear of persecution" and need to flee my country. But if I do, I won't be getting out the travel brochure and trying to make it to Paris. I'll be "fleeing" to my nearest port of sanctuary (probably, shiver, NZ) not making risky, expensive boat trips across half the world.

I am not a big fan of Phillip Ruddock, but I do agree with one of his past comments. He said he understood people's sympathy towards boat people given the high standard of living that are we accustomed to in Australia.
But he described the health and welfare of those stepping off the boats as a far cry from the REAL refugees that he had visited in Africa who needed our help.
As has been mentioned here a few times, every half deserving boat person who arrives, takes a place from a more deserving refugee who is stuck in a camp somewhere else in the world, who would not have dreamed of having the money or the ability to reach Australia on their own.

The most desperate and vunerable of the world’s refugees are single women and children living in squalid refugee camps in Africa and Asia. They live in abject poverty and are forced to deal with hostile locals, an almost total lack of economic opportunities, frequent gender based violence, high rates of crime and food shortages. However, as a group they are not represented among the clients of people smugglers as they are obviously unable to pay the many thousands of dollars required.

The main group of asylum seekers using people smugglers to come from Afghanistan seem to be able bodied men with access to substantial financial resources. They are able to pay the $10,000 per person required to pay people smugglers, even though Afghanistan has a per capita income of about $800 per year or around $2 per day.

Refugee advocates frequently cite racism or xenophobia or anti-muslim sentiment as the reasons for so many Australians being strongly against queue jumping, but could it not be that it greatly offends the sense of fairness of very many Australians that able bodied men coming from countries where the per capita income is $2 - $3 per day can pay many thousands of dollars to people smugglers and thus take precedence in Australia’s refugee resettlement program over desperate and vulnerable women and children refugees.

Franklin has an excellent point re able-bodied men with money being the biggest group of boat people. Lets have a points system that favours Mothers and young children. However all refugees have to be accepting of our way of life.
Here is another idea. NO money passes to any lawyer under any circumstances of the refugee examination proceedure? Of course I appreciate the author and her colleagues are only doing this for the good of all humanity so they will not be worried surely?
Refugees have a visa for ten years but if they go back to their country of origin in this period then their visa is cancelled. So many people who are desperate to enter Australia go back "home" regularly when supposedly they were in fear of their lives?

*Being poor does not mean you qualify as a refugee under the convention*

Nobody claimed that it did, Baxter, so quit shooting down
your own strawman arguments.

The point is that people who have nothing and are living
in refugee camps, are highly likely to be refugees, which is
not the case for those sailing here for a properous life.

Our present asylum seeker policy is frankly a joke. So Kevi
rings Indonesia and they get rid of yet another boat from
Sri Lanka. So what are these people meant to think? That
Australia welcomes boat people, or it does not welcome
boat people? Should they risk their savings on a trip to
Australia?

Once again, lets have a fair and cost effective system.
Close down the boat trade once and for all, so that nobody
pays people smugglers. Create a queue that many are fretting
about, then take all 13'000 or whatever number of asylum
seekers that Australia agrees on, from refugee camps.

Its fair, its cost effective. Its far better then our
present confused system.

The political left seems totally unable to grasp the groundswell of opposition to ALL immigration that is sweeping most western countries at present. The thing they cannot grasp is that it has little to to with race, and everything to do with overcrowding, swamping of government services and destruction of environment (as illustrated on the North Shore at present). Last year there were over 750,000 immigrants into Britain, mainly from eastern european members of the EU, and neither major party would say anything about it, due to pressure from the real estate and business pressure groups that benefit from immigration. The result was the election of two British National Party members to the European Parliament. If the left want to encourage the resurgence of the far right in politics, this is the way to go. When will the political elites realise that the main problem in the world, from which all others stem, is not nuclear proliferation, global warming or CO2, but POPULATION, we will be able to make some progress. The only heroes in this is the Chinese, who have succeeded in cutting their population increase by 250 million with their one-child policy. Nature has a fairly brutal way of dealing with any species that permits its population to exceed the sustainable limit, and it usually involves four horsemen. The world population will have gone from 3 billion in 1959 to 7 billion next year. All countries should immediately adopt the Chinese policy to minimise the imminent huge further increase. Those that refuse to comply should be denied all foreign aid or trade, and forced to choke on the increase. There is, of course, no hope of this happening, as the only thing that George Bush, the Pope, and the Ayatollah agree on is that nothing must be done to limit population.

Just listening to this morning’s radio news - another boat load of Sri Lankan “refugees”

These are not people who are persecuted. They are not the victims of civil strife, recalling the Tamil terrorist rebellion ended some month s ago.
These people are what is called “economic refugees” which is not a valid reason for being considered a “refugee”.

The boats should be either

1 treated as misplaced/misdirected and turned around.
OR
2 treated as “hostile” and the Australian Defense forces use all military means at their disposal to ensure they do not land on Australian sovereign territory, sinking being but one option.

Those misguided idiots and so called “advocates”, who believe we should accept the waifs and strays of every other land, need to understand, their sort of Anarchy will bring any community to its knees and to be honest, I do not wish to live like that and nor do I wish it upon my children or grand children.

The Howard government had the right policies but Krudd & Co could never accept that, such is the extent of socialist hubris.

Aah how the *Blue Wolves* howl.

But putting the merits of your arguments to one side, and to assume that no one is advocating for a return to policies which arguably constitute child abuse, for my 2c worth, I would suggest to you that you are out of sync, off the pulse and not contributing as you have the potential to do in the national interest.

Now, for what its worth, and taking into account that in reality I only have a relatively very limited vantage point, Mr Wudd a.k.a pm Krudd has done a most excellent thing in drawing close to SBY at this point in time i.m.h.o.

The basis for this view is this. One of the two "terrorists" that they shot in their rooms recently was, according to recent local press reports here, a qualified pilot, educated and with technical skills ranging beyond mere bomb making. Just have a think about that for a moment. ..

I would suggest that the best recipe for success for bagging Indo hardliners is one that has Indonesians on the front line. And that has started to happen.

So in brief, and noting that everyone is unsure of themselves and that none of us is perfect, at a time of solemn reflection and also celebration, don't take it as an opp to knock him off his balance, but rather, take the time to help shine the warm fuzzy spotlight on the commendable achievements, let relevant parties have a bask in glow of mutual public appreciation, breathing in .. and breathing out.

Recently N.M.Top, this latest character and others and the hunt goes on. I reckon extended warm fuzzies over the real time links is appropriate with public involvement. ..

There is still a lot of mistrust and a sincere smile goes a long way in Indonesia.

* by saying yesterday that the Government's policy struck a balance between the hardline and the humane.*

http://www.smh.com.au/national/rudd-talks-tough-on-people-smugglers-20091014-gxgk.html

Sheesh, our Kevie is so busy playing politics here, that perhaps
he does not even recognise, that it is his very policy that is
confusing refugees in the first place.

Perhaps if Theresa told him that she loved him one day, only to
tell him the next day to go away and leave her alone, he might
land up confused too :) But that is exactly what his present
policy is doing.

Asylum seekers on Christmas Island will no doubt be emailing and
phoning their many friends, about the free i-pods, great food,
medical care and money given to them by the taxpayer. Next thing
their friends are fought off with sticks, if they happen to be
on the wrong boat. No wonder these people are stressed!

Kevie would be too, if Theresa was as inconsistent as he is, when
it comes to his boat people policy.

Its time to shut down the boat trade completely and take all refugees
from refugee camps. This saga has gone on for far too long.

Free i-pods, Yabby? I don't suppose you'd like to provide some evidence for your hateful claims?

Not persecuted, Col? You must read the news coming out of Sri Lanka very selectively indeed.

I note that the desperate Turnbull has turned up the volume on his dog-whistle in the last couple of days. With so many willing responders to his hateful tune, I expect to hear much more of it.

CJ and others,

I admire you all trying to take the moral high ground by extending sympathy and caring for the immigrants who arrive on boats but I think you have your head in the clouds or somewhere else. I also love that anyone who disagrees with you is "hateful" and "racist".

I would point out that there has been virtually no comments including from Mr Turnbull indicating that there should be no refugees admitted, or that refugee intake should be decreased.

Go to google images and type in "refugee camp". Then take a look at the pictures. Do any of those people look like they have the ability to travel half way across the world and pay tens of thousands of dollars to people smugglers?

If these boatloads of people were really refugees, they would be jumping for joy that they had reached a safe country like Indonesia, not paying top dollar to get on board a cramped decrepit old boat that might sink to travel to Australia. You bleeding hearts see this as an example of their desperation. I see it as an example that they are trying to reach Australia, not seek refuge.

The purpose of fleeing persecution is to flee persecution, is it not? If these people are not being persecuted in Indonesia why continue to Australia?

Some things can't be bought with money.

" ... Ostrarlee sama aja Amerika, musuh BESAR! ... "

The above is an alleged quote allegedly taken from the laptop of N.M.Top and reported here quite openly in the local Indo media so undoubtedly is not news to those who are informed.

Babel Fish:
Australia is the same as (and not different) to America,
a BIG enemy.

..

What about a tech transfer to upgrade the "Indonesia Id card" with a chip, send some salary techs into Indo on a mates basis at their discretion, and help them role out an on-line data matching system.

They've already got a street level paper based registration of civi's system, overlorded by a series of competing fragemented departments.

Instituting a national effective taxation system is high on the Indo agenda and will have lots of good spin offs for everyone if done fairly and firmly.

..

Currently, due to a lack of incentive and supervision, people on the ground get to fill in their own details for the formation of the I.D. card in some Indo jurisdictions, and that is one of the 2 primary documents required to make a visa to Australia. The family card is a gimme once u've got an ID card and in the case of Top, he had different families and a bunch of wives all over the show. So, enter on one set of cards, leave on another.

..

Thus, in terms of illegal entrants, in no insignificant way, in those areas where you think you are strongest you are in fact weakest, and where you assert we are weakest, we are in fact strongest.

..

*BEYONCE*

" ... Baby I won't shed a tear for you

(Harmonies)I won't shed a tear

I won't lose a wink of sleep
as the truth of the matter is replacing you is so easy

to the left to the left, to the left to the left,
mmmmmmm
to the left to the left,
everything you own in a box to the left,
to the left to the left ... "

Col,

'The boats should be either

1 treated as misplaced/misdirected and turned around.
OR
2 treated as “hostile” and the Australian Defense forces use all military means at their disposal to ensure they do not land on Australian sovereign territory, sinking being but one option.'

Ah Col I cant agree. I think as long as they are on barely sea worthy craft, overloaded to 5 times capacity, they should stay just for their achievement in making it. Further, I think we should film it and have a survivor type show, that follows them from the start, and follows their life after they are granted citizenship. It would be great TV.

I once knew a guy who came on a boat from Vietnam, and the stories he used to tell were fantastic. Surely you can appreciate the human endeavour to better oneself? I'd much rather desperate economic refugees, filling the country with economic prosperity and working hard for a better life than a local who expects the guvment to look after him.

Surely at least you'd support the opportunity for all that below minimum wage unskilled labour from illegal immigrants. It can be the engine room for a country. I remember when I lived in London, catching mini-cabs everywhere and thinking the city would come to a stand-still if all the illegal immigrants left all at once.

Or maybe it's better we exploit the poor at arms length by just investing in countries where the wages are really low and skimming the profits. As they exploit us of-course, for a ladder to a better life.

Ah, I love nature. The co-dependency of different animals. It's a beauty to behold. Something the socialists would never understand.

Burbs “The purpose of fleeing persecution is to flee persecution, is it not? If these people are not being persecuted in Indonesia why continue to Australia?”

Exactly and here is the answer

For these “economic opportunists” (because the term “refugee” just does not apply ), Indonesia does not offer the same “economic opportunity” as Australia.

To the individual economic opportunists and their families, who have been interviewed and been given airtime on the Australian broadcasting networks I have this so say

Australia is legally entitled to determine who is allowed to settle in Australia.

I had to wait in a queue….

You can wait in a queue (if you have the credentials to support your application)

But

You do not get to unilaterally decide for yourself.

And you do not get to or determine that

“Australia looks like a nice place to invade today… so let’s just wreck the boat on a convenient beach”

Houlle “Surely at least you'd support the opportunity for all that below minimum wage unskilled labour from illegal immigrants.”

I do not support exploitation in any form. Such practices debase the opportunity for legal workers (migrants or otherwise) and create an oppressed underclass. Better everyone who is allowed to settle in Australia is treated equally (by deporting illegal arrivals) than creating a differential based on their residential legal status

Col,

'I do not support exploitation in any form. Such practices debase the opportunity for legal workers (migrants or otherwise) and create an oppressed underclass. Better everyone who is allowed to settle in Australia is treated equally (by deporting illegal arrivals) than creating a differential based on their residential legal status'

You're right of course Col. But they needn't be illegal if we give them residency. I just think a lot of the jobs most Aussies think they're too good for can be done by people who are desperate for a chance while learning the language skills. It works in London. The fact that these people are so resourceful and hard working means they soon climb out of this 'underclass' in a country like Australia, and then are replaced with new economic opportunists.

I know it's far easier to get a cab in London after a night out, and that's just one of the benefits.

'Such practices debase the opportunity for legal workers'
Not really. You would have been in a different employment market as you were a skilled migrant who speaks English. Also a lot of the lower skilled jobs the locals just wont do.

I can see the fear though. Once we encourage the practise it will be more and more common for people smugglers to exploit these people who are willing to risk their lives for a better world. But in your libertarian philosophy, isn't that the choice of the people paying the people smugglers. It's a market, and the smugglers provide a service.

As I said, surely you can appreciate the human endeavour to better oneself? I think those boat people are fantastic! Maybe I just appreciate the physical challenge of getting her on a rickety boat rather than the psychological challenge of fighting with government agencies and bribing bureaucrats to get here by other means.

Houlle “As I said, surely you can appreciate the human endeavour to better oneself?”

Of course.

And I also appreciate the equal application of law

I had to wait in a queue and jump over some specific hurdles before gaining residency in Australia.

I see no justifiable reason to remove those laws for the benefit of people who would flaunt the law and demand Australia subordinate itself for the sake of their sense of personal entitlement.

As I have quoted – there can be no entitlement without first meeting an obligation.

In this instance, the “obligation” is to present and qualify for a valid visa before residential “entitlement” is granted

or

to seek to join others for a place in the quota of “real” refugee applicants.

Those who attempt to circumvent this balance of “obligation and entitlement” are demonstrating their criminal nature and so demonstrate their inability to meet the one of the basics of the obligation upon which entitlement is earned (good character).

This whole debate is about Australia exercising its sovereignty and deciding who comes here...

and not giving in to the Anarchy of non-Australians and illegal aliens deciding who comes here.

Every day I check but still no response Susan. Question too hard?

Houellebecq

<< Maybe I just appreciate the physical challenge of getting her on a rickety boat ... >>

As a mere female myself, yes, you'd have a challenge getting me onto one of those. :)

In all seriousness, you present a good case, even if it is one based on unabashed self-serving pragmatism.

Col will never listen to the likes of me, but you might cut through with some sound economic argument. After all, Col's free market capitalist utopia will collapse without a ready supply of cheap and willing labor.

Col Rouge

<< And I also appreciate the equal application of law. >>

Equal application of the law, as applied to two groups who are negotiating from vastly unequal positions to begin with, can only result in an unjust outcome.

Someone from a comfortable middle class background - who seeks to emigrate for no other reason than to better an already comparatively affluent lifestyle - is in a very different position to someone who seeks protection in another country for no other reason than to escape torture and death in his or her homeland. Standing these two people in the same 'queue' would be a gross miscarriage of justice.

<< I had to wait in a queue and jump over some specific hurdles before gaining residency in Australia. I see no justifiable reason to remove those laws for the benefit of people who would flaunt the law and demand Australia subordinate itself for the sake of their sense of personal entitlement. >>

Is their so-called 'sense of personal entitlement' any different to your own? In fact, many would argue that their circumstances warrant a sense of urgency, or an 'entitlement', that yours patently did not.

TBC

Col (cont)

<< As I have quoted – there can be no entitlement without first meeting an obligation. In this instance, the “obligation” is to present and qualify for a valid visa before residential “entitlement” is granted or to seek to join others for a place in the quota of “real” refugee applicants. >>

As has been pointed out to you countless times before, Col, there is nowhere for the majority of asylum seekers to go and collect a visa, and certainly not without enormous risk. Besides, it is perfectly legal to seek asylum without documentation.

In fact, it's perfectly legal to seek asylum, full stop. Referring to asylum seekers as 'illegal aliens,' as you do, only demonstrates your own arrogance and ignorance of asylum seeker issues.

Bronwyn, whilst you are talking of "arrogance" and "ignorance" please bear in mind these arrivals mostly destroy their own documents, try and scuttle the ships they are on and have traveled through many more countries before Australia.
It strikes me that they had no problems with documentation getting to our North whilst going through Malaysia and Indonesia.
The furore over the so called "Children overboard" when illegals have been happy to burn or sink the ships they are on to ensure passage to Australia was totally corrupt. The latest nonsense when months ago they fired a boat and people were killed and we do not have the guts to treat those pirates accordingly beggars belief.
Finally if they are in such danger why not stay in Malaysia or Indonesia?
The latest Tamils could just go straight over to India and join their fellow Tamils in their own Indian State.
The refugee lobby is making a nice little quid out of this scandal and the first thing needed is to have "Refugees" only represent themselves and no payments to any Australian legal eagles. Then a refusal to tell, or tell the truth should result in expulsion.

It is perfectly legal to seek asylum, and this can be done easily outside Australia.

The people coming across in boats have not even attempted to apply for asylum to Australia in Indonesia or elsewhere.

Unless the laws have changed it is illegal to attempt to enter the country without a valid visa so the boat people have broken the law and are detained.

Claiming they are not illegal immigrants is PC gone wrong. I note the skippers of the boats got 6 years for helping them apply (legally) for asylum.

Maybe you should call them legally challenged, unofficially transient, aspiring to legality, etc

If they hadn't broken the law, they could not be detained.

Bronwyn “As has been pointed out to you countless times before, Col, there is nowhere for the majority of asylum seekers to go and collect a visa, and certainly not without enormous risk. Besides, it is perfectly legal to seek asylum without documentation.”

Feeble excuse… and one which any genuine refugee with time would manage to surmount.

“In fact, it's perfectly legal to seek asylum, full stop. Referring to asylum seekers as 'illegal aliens,' as you do, only demonstrates your own arrogance and ignorance of asylum seeker issues.”

The purpose of a boat landing is to avoid detection, because coming through an airport carries a 100% certainty of being sent to a detention centre and your “genuineness” tested properly. That is illegal.

Now you can pretend you stand on the moral high ground but we both know your assertions are backed by feeble sentimentality and lack the reason and ;logic upon which Australian (and most other) migration laws are based.

In short… the Australian government owes a duty of care firstly to the people of Australia to ensure those with communicable diseases or criminal intent and bad character are not allowed free entry to the wider Australian community.

It does not owe a duty of care to a bunch of anarchistic economic opportunists who plead the sympathy card because some of their fellow Tamils failed in a war of terror against other Sri Lankans.

We do not need the sort of people who revert to terrorism here in Australia and as someone (the resident Moron) pointed out… the Tamils have been in Sri Lanka for 2000 years… if they could not work out how to assimilate into the wider Sri Lankan community in that time… they have no hope of doing it in Australia and are thus unsuited to settlement here.

And those who are trying to blackmail Australia by going on hunger strike should be left to starve.

I had to qualify to get here… I see no reason why every other applicant should not be required to leap similar hurdles