excellent greg, we need to hear this stuff as often as we can to offset the mindless hate and racism that is constantly touted by the bigots in all political parties.

Put a sock in it, Barns. Ruddock and Howard did what Australians wanted done: they halted illegal entry.

Rudd is going to have to do the same thing eventually, and if you feel ashamed, that's your problem.

No illegals should set foot on Australian soil.

and right on time, with the same old moronic hate speak...the bigots start to appear....

Here he comes again. Its E Hitler Sykes. You have been very bad Leigh. Don't you know that you must agree to everything that E Hitler Sykes says, otherwise you will be shouted down and called defamatory names without any logical argument. Leigh, you must agree with E Hitler Sykes, you are allowed no other options. Most of all you are not allowed to think for yourself. What do you think this is, some kind of democracy, get real. E Hitler Sykes is in charge of all correct opinions. You are a bigot Leigh, please stop expressing your own opinions ( on onlineopinion ), this simple should not be allowed. How dare you point out what many people think. Who do you think you are?

I'm sorry that we cannot have a divergence of opinion without name calling. I'm not a bigot, racist or xenophobe despite what labels people try to apply and I do accept that people arriving on ricketty boats have been pushed to unacceptable levels to take such huge risks but I don't accept that they should automatically be accepted ahead of potential immigrants who are churning through the legal processes to get here.

The very definition of 'asylum seeker' needs to be given some perspective. When people arrive on boats, they are illegal immigrants, just because they ask to come to Australia we then label them as asylum seekers but in reality, it is only refugees that we have an ethical and moral responsibility to accept.

Despite the childish labels that will be applied to me I do have an open mind and I'm keen to listen to solutions to the worldwide problem of people movement but this article does nothing to enlighten me. Instead it relies on colourful language to inflame opinion while offering no alternatives. Should we simply open our borders and allow anyone to come here despite national shortfalls in potable water and forecast shorfalls in food production? I doubt that anyone would advocate that sort of anarchic approach to immigration. In that case we have to apply some criteria to people wanting to live here, no matter how open we wish to be.

To suggest as this article does that asylum seekers 'never have and never will' produce a threat to Australia is pure sylogysm. Arrivals by boat have posed no harm, we accept anyone arriving by boat, therefore the millions of people seeking a better life in Australia should be welcomed. Oh, and if you dare to disagree we will label you as a bigot.

Well said Greg.
Apparently Howard left a lot of his clothes, including underwear, at the Lodge and Rudd was in such a rush to take over that he grabbed these clothes and put them on, including the underwear which was unwashed. Apparently he liked the cut of them so much that he continues to wear them, still unwashed.
Leigh you are a cruel and abusive character, go and seek help before you do yourself or someone else harm. Oh, and look up the Migration Act, you will see that refugees are not classified as illegal. Should I presume that you believe in the rule of law or do you flaunt it, run red lights,slip the odd quid under the bed?
Bruce Haigh

Oh and right behind E Hitler Sykes comes Bruce Goebbels Haigh. Leigh you are a cruel abusive bigot. Please stop expressing your opinion. Hitler Sykes and Goebbels Haigh are the only people allowed to say what is right and what is not. Leigh your only job here is to agree with them.

Haig,

Refugees might not be classified as illegals but, as we don't know anything about people arriving illegally (by the laws of any country) they cannot be classified as refugees. You might also do some thinking about the archaic and inappropriate 1951 Convention which was not designed for today's situation. Like the idiot, Sykes, you hate anyone to disagree with your childish outlook on everything.

Ozzie,

There will always be people like Sykes and Haig. They are best ignored. I responded to Haig this time only because I'm amazed to think that a person who thinks he knows all the answers still believes it's OK to rock up to any country, having destroyed your documents and been coached in the sob stories that work on our poorly trained immigration officials. The UN, for all its faults, is not so easilty fooled; and that's why the illegals avoid the UN offices on the way here.

Haig also dislikes me because I criticise his solicited articles. He needs to toughen up like other contributors. Unlike real writers, he doesn't expect anyone to question his personal thinking.

Leigh, you can also offer my sock to Greg Barns; you are also absolutely right when you say that Ruddock/Howard did what Australians wanted done. An opinion poll initially showed 92% support for halting illegal entry. That was just before the howling of the intelligentsia started to put our heads right.

Bruce Haigh, there are 15 million refugees according to the UNHCR, and yes you’re right, the Migration Act distinguishes between refugees and illegal immigrants. Firstly, though, there is a process by Australia and the UNHCR to determine their status which comes “before” the Migration Act kicks in. Your point is?

The endless bleating by refugee advocates is based upon their immediate jumping to conclusions that all boat people are refugees and acceptance of privately funded queue jumping, people smugglers. I can’t imagine how you sleep at night knowing that your values are causing so much additional suffering to these poor souls. You really are a rotten lot.

The Australian sense of fair play is alive and well however, many of us are provoked by the accusation that we are bigots, racists and human rights abusers simply because we support the current international rules

Oh Yes, so you are involved in developing gold mining in Bolivia, a place that has a dubious human rights history.

One hopes Greg that you espouse the same human rights and working conditions on your mine workers as you are currently lecturing us about

Race hate crime reminds me of my fear of speeding and reckless drivers. Everytime I go out in the car I live in fear and suffer anxiety. Every single vehicle is a potential weapon ready to be used against me. Does this make me a racist, xenophobic or part of a dark underbelly?

Irrational. Perhaps. Why? Because there is not enough done to police speed.

I was in Sutherland Shire in the lead up to the riots. There was a lot of intimidation, rapes, crime that were directed toward non- Arabic and I received on my doorstep one day, a letter that threatened the lives of my offspring because they were white. I did not have children and had no interaction to inspire such a letter, so presume wrong address but very unsettling. Had I children I would have been forced from my home, a refugee if you like. I believe there were many such internal refugees over the other side of the Georges River.

However the local refugee, unprotected by police paralysed by fear of being charge with racism, divisive media reporting, persecuted by a minority had no such agency as the UN or outlet for protection. In fact those that profess to be the advocate of the refugee joined in the queue to persecute labelling them racist, backward, redneck and the list goes on.

Australians are very accepting and welcoming people... to a point. It is long past due date they were treated with respect. Afterall the policies of both sides sought to divide us so both equally responsible in my eyes.

I deplore the liberal party policies but prefer the other side admit they were part of the problem, never part of any solution.

So liberal party guilty as they held responsibilty of government at the time but then were the supposed supporters of human rights. Unprotected citizens, or those that feel unprotected, have every right to protect themselves. Isn't that what the boat people are doing?

Why all the name calling and derision?

I think we are all agreed Australia like every other country in the world is entitled to an orderly immigration process.
Anyone who does't think this please say so and give a reasoned argument for your position.

Greg you haven't advocated any position except to say 10,000 boat people should be allowed to stay in Ausralia. Would you clarify this. Is that in total, or per anum? Does it mean we need to make an off-setting reduction in our usual 13,000 per annum humanitariam intake from those waiting in camps around the world? Or do you propose no limit on numbers of our overall annual humanitarian intake.

If you think numbers be limited what should they be limited to .. 20,000, 30,000, 40,000 ... 10 million? If you have a cut off point how would you achieve it?

I refuse to accept your view that there are not many many 10's of thousands of refugees who wouldn't want to come to Australia. It doesn't take into account the reality of the numbers of refugees around the world or that there are going to be increasing social upheaveals in many third world countries.

Nothing like asylum seekers who arrive by boat to bring out the ignorant and downright nasty from under their rocks.

Mind you, it's quite amusing that ozzie would accuse those who stick up for human rights as "Nazis". Can I invoke Godwin's Law this early in the thread?

So insanely hypocritical. Listen here all you redneck, racist, bigoted, xenophobic bogans (ok everyone has stoped listening at this point) blah, blah, blah.

Written and Authorised on behalf of the Australian Society of registered Bullies who like to persecute those that do share our political viewpoint and also like to censor talk of crimes committed against you. However we feel sorry for those who are also at the receiving end of our ilk but in other countries. This is because we were caught out with our hate toward those of other colour so now direct it to those that share a few more genetic traits but lack in the white superiority department.

Whatever you think about the policy of locking up asylum seekers, if we lock up the men, there should be no problem with locking up the women. Saying otherwise is sexist and paternalistic.

I wish people would just shut up about this.
If the media shock jocks and tabloid rags stopped beating up the fear and sensationalising the few that come hardly anyone would actually care and no one would be adversely effected.

I wish our leaders were more like Malcolm Fraser was (never thought Id say that) back in the days of Vietnamese and Cambodian boat people. The reffos as people called them at the time could have been locked in camps and demonised by the government and there were those here and in other countries that tried, but the Gov of the day treated them fairly, humanly and as timely as possible to get them settled in Australia. There were settling in problems like Cabramatta but now those people and their descendants are welcome and valuable members of our communities and no one bats an eyelid to see names like Nguyen in public or private.

I wish Aussies weren't so quick to fall for the racist dog whistlers.
They are only after distraction and taking your minds away from the real issues. It is a divide and rule strategy. Set one group of proles against another. I thought us aussies had progressed a bit beyond that. Especially given our history of immigration over the past century. When will we ever learn?

I wish we would help these countries become so nice their people wouldnt want to leave and become refugees. The real problem isnt refugees coming to Australia it is refugees in the first place. In 2009 to think that humanity still has the barbarism and chaos that leads to refugees is a shame on all of us and a massive failure of the human race.

when the rest of us just went along like a mob of stupid sheep, along came Cornelia Rau to show us that because we allowed these crimes of humanity to happen to THOSE ILLEGALS, then it started happening to us, AUSTRALIAN CITIZENS. Why can't we adopt a tad more humanity and do what they do in British Columbia and Sweden, allow these refugees to live in the community until their paperwork is processed? They haven't committed any crimes, and would be more than eager to work at anything to earn their keep. Why are we so fond of incarcerating other human beings, is it something in our genes? Maybe one day when we mature and become a republic and have a Bill of Rights that applies to all, will we see that dak period under Howard as what lies in store for us again if we don't grow up - and soon.

If the diatribes above are about persons arriving by boat then, may I remind people that there are more "illegal" immigrants arriving by plane - overstaying visas, working when they are not supposed to etc....

Also, can someone point to the law that defines what (or who) are "illegal immigrants"?

I hope that one day all those espousing tough treatment on the poor sods putting their life on the line to come here, will themselves be victim of the types of situations that make people decide to jump on a boat. Only then will you begin to realize that behind the faces you loathe are people with aspirations and dreams of a safe life...something EVERYONE is entitled to.

Spindoc
"An opinion poll initially showed 92% support for halting illegal entry".

Now who's looking foolish? I don't know which is more so.
- the banality of the comment.
- your understanding of polls, 92% of whom?
- lack of understanding of the political realities, 2-5% change in voters changes the government therefore 92% of Aust is ridiculous.
- knowledge of the law, What illegal entry? read the 1951 covenant on refugees, no mention of transit methods.
- or the infantile anti intelligence rhetoric. Are you admitting that you're stupid?
- or do you underrate the average Aussie that the 'howling ..." would have that much influence.

The missus
Neurosis or mental illness (fear of hoons) is hardly a justification for anything except your own failings.

Leigh, Ozzie et al
Have you tried breathing into a paper bag? such breathless hysteria convinces no one. All the Facts even the inconvenient ones please.
Abuse and Godwin's law only confirm you have little knowledge or understanding of the situation.

NB Mob rule isn't democracy its simply fear and prejudice run amock.

Perhaps you all need to widen your reading material and broaden your utterances from sloganeering and parroting mindless urban prejudices. Try putting up a coherent analysis... something that represents cogent, on topic, discussion that shows both understanding and reasoned thought.
Then again I believe most people can if they try.

very strange that many who argue that we are overpopulated (not enough water blah blah) then want us to accept illegal immigrants. I think priority should be given to those who come here by legal means. The left really hate any rules other than there own (probably explains why they endorse queue jumping). The sad part is that many of them then pull out the compassion badge while pouring out their vile on our previous Prime Minister of 12 years. The hypocrisy is clear to anyone who thinks.

it's amazing how many people on this thread are yelling that they're being forcibly shut up. they're the loudest mutes i've ever heard!

>> Ruddock and Howard did what Australians wanted done

yes, indeed. much to australia's shame.

Yikes Sykes, you're almost as bad as CJ Morgan!

Extremist to the extreme in your intolerance of those who you brand as being intolerant (and all manner of much stronger terms)!

You've completely skittled any credibility that you might have had with your two one-liner, hate-filled, substanceless posts.

Hey CJ, say hello to Sykesie. Looks like he's your new best friend!

.
'Philip Ruddock's policies led to some of the grossest abuses of human rights in Australian history.'

What an extroardinary crock of crap, Greg Barnes!

Ruddock and Howard did what had to be done at the time of the Tampa incident. It is just a pity that they didn't act earlier.... so that the terribly emotive chapter that followed the Tampa could have been avoided.

But I have no doubt that if Beazley and Labor had been in power at the time, they wouldn't have acted anywhere near as decisively and the whole issue would have blown out into a much bigger debacle.

Why the hell can't you Greg and everyone in your school of thought concentrate on how to improve our offshore legal refugee program, which concentrates on the most needy refugees, instead of getting so hung up on supporting the haphazard illegal terribly emotive onshore asylum-seeker people-smuggling route?

I just don't get it. Could you please proffer and answer.

.
Leigh, I've got a spare sock or two as well!

Ahhh fungus!

That should have read;

'could you please proffer an answer'

.
Hey runner

Well said!!

Examinator, I don’t know who was polled, ask Newspoll following the Tampa incident. What is your point? The public lack (your) understanding of the political realities? We are “looking foolish”, we lack (your) “knowledge of the law”, we are “stupid”, we suffer “infantile anti intelligence” and mistake average Aussie gut opinion for “intellectual howling”.

I’m sorry that we Aussies fail to meet your ideological expectations, which brings me nicely to the point, since when where you appointed as the conscience of the average Aussie?

When I suggested that we need to have our heads sorted out by the “intelligentsia”, I was specifically referring to people like you. It is mind boggling that on the one hand you suggest we represent “fear and prejudice” whilst you run amock with: let me guess? Ah, yes! Fear and prejudice. You just don’t get it do you?

A self opinionated, dysfunctional elitist who sees no good in any perspective that is not yours. You and your like are those who create that which you seek to avoid. Genuine asylum seekers must curse you as the roadblock to the freedom they deserve. You are a true blight on all things humanitarian.

Well according to this story in the SMH, the smugglers are moving
in on anyone in Sri Lanka with enough money. There are clearly
great quids to be made and our suckers here will no doubt
buy their stories.

Never mind those with no money, left behind, they have no chance,
as the prize goes to those who pay enough bribes. Hardly
a fair system IMHO.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/smugglers-set-sights-on-thousands-of-tamils-20091019-h51m.html

All that is required under the Convention is to claim to have
a legitimate fear. A bit of acting and away we go!

I can't imagine how I formed the opinion that Yabby's intention is to discredit asylum seekers who arrive by boat. Clearly, it was a bad call - not.

Ludwig, you're beneath contempt. You approach the debate about asylum seekers like a schoolkid forming playground alliances.

CJ, it is my intention to see things as they are and it is my
intention that if we have a system, it is a fair one, which does
not favour those who manage to con the system or those simply
wealthy enough to use their money to make the difference.

If you have so little empathy for those at the back of the queue,
that you can only focus on what is dangled in front of your
tv screen on the news, then you really are as stupid as I had
suspected all along. Thanks for making my case for me.

The number of asylum seekers is miniscule both in global terms and in terms of the numbers of refugees that are expected as a result of climate change. We are so far away from being prepared for the mass dislocation of people that is expected from climate impacts...When 100 million people lose their homes and begin to move seeking safety, food, water, home, what do we do then? Instead of the knee jerk xenophobia that seems to be the norm, we need to address the reality of refugees at a global scale and with far greater humanitarianism and compassion than we are currently showing.

How can Greg Barnes be possibly called a journalist? It's sad, the state of affairs here.

Surely an extension of the stupid leftie argument that we help all their rich ones and let them in, would be to go there with troops and force them to live like westerners?

This way we help them all! It's only because we follow western values that our nation is good.

Non-west = bombed out crapholes full of tribalism, sectarianism, murder, rape, pillage, and RACISM between various ethnic clans, i.e. Tamils.

West = best!

To Greg Barns, E.Sykes, Bruce Haigh, CJ Morgan and next.

You and everyone who agrees with your point of view about the issue of boat people is HATEFUL, XENOPHOBIC, RACIST AND IGNORANT.

What's that? There's no argument in my argument? Just abuse?

I love the "I'm right because YOUR'E A RACIST !" argument.

As they say in the sporting arena, play the ball not the man. I will point out that no comment has been made about allowing certain races but not others entry to Australia, and no comments have been made to suggest stopping all entry of refugees or immigrants, just illegals. So I would love to hear what you think is racist?

From the authority on refugees UNHCR: http://www.unhcr.org.au/basicdef.shtml

Who is a refugee?

A refugee is a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country…"

Article 1, The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

The important point I believe is "fear of persecution". Once refugees have escaped that persecution, are they still considered refugees? Or does fear of persecution in your own country give you a free pass to relocate to any part of the world you wish?

I believe that refugees stop being refugees when they are no longer persecuted. From that point I believe they are then choosing to continue and should be considered immigrants.

For example - A group of Muhajir Afghans flees Afghanistan. They can go to Pakistan or Iran and find safety from presecution in those countries. Yet, they continue over 9000kms to try to reach Australia. For reference, travelling 9000kms would mean they could reach any country in Europe, most of Asia and most of Africa all over land. That to me makes me question why they try to reach Australia by paying top dollar to get on rickety old boats.

>> To Greg Barns, E.Sykes, Bruce Haigh, CJ Morgan and next.

huh. no bushbasher. obviously i'm not pulling my weight. i'll try to work harder.

Greg leads with the line:

"Philip Ruddock's policies led to some of the grossest abuses of human rights in Australian history"

Perhaps someone might enlighten me as to what was done that contravened the international charter of human rights. I think you will struggle.

Greg Barns is one of those bleeding hearts that wants to take on all the ills of the entire world, and is quite happy to spend everyone else's money to do so.

Bushbasher,

you've done far too much pulling already

Cheers
:-)

Examinator,
My failings? I support humane treatment of asylum seekers, somewhat qualified, as you could note from reading my letter on the Get tough or prepare for a flood article. I also recognise that human rights apply to humans, all humans. If Australians are to be treated with such hate and contempt and labelled racist by knee jerk extremists when they have valid concerns, then I understand their fear at being left unprotected whenever a race hate crime is committed against them.

Also, Australians have every right to a political opinion, every right to say they reject all migrant inflows into the country if they so wish. Some left wing would prefer no skilled migrants and only humane resettlement. Perhaps we should argue this angle? Oh no the capitalist only want so many to look good. I see Australians outraged at young Jessica sailing into the sunset, claims she is doing it for money, for fame and how much is it going to cost the taxpayer to rescue her. Where are the shouts of racist, bigot, bogan. Australians are consistent if nothing else.

If the abuse continues toward Australians then I understand, not share, their concern and my loyalty will lay with them first and foremost. If we do not offer protection or understanding of Australians right to have a voice then we have no business giving such a promise to anyone else.

I think political asylum seekers need political extremists, who love nothing better than hate speech, to be their spokesperson like a hole in the head, and would be better served by a better PR firm. It is not the asylum seeker people are rejecting; it’s the messengers of malice. I see the same personality traits of the designers of dysfunctional societies that give rise to human suffering. Both sides have been extremist, dishonest and have played asylum seekers and Australians against each other like fascist pawns. One side no more humane than the other.

“Neurosis or mental illness (fear of hoons) is hardly a justification for anything except your own failings”. But a reason for asylum?

Bikesusenofuel
quote: “I hope that one day all those espousing tough treatment on the poor sods putting their life on the line to come here, will themselves be victim of the types of situations that make people decide to jump on a boat. Only then will you begin to realize that behind the faces you loathe are people with aspirations and dreams of a safe life...something EVERYONE is entitled to.”

Refugee movements of this type have historically been the domain of the wealthy, relatively speaking. Those without wealth are the ones left behind and face the greatest struggle. So I certainly will never find myself in that situation, no money!

Go back to plague times still the same story, the rich flee the rest of us suffer our fate.

Many do realise they have grounds to claim refugee status and use that as ticket to a country of choice. This is obvious and the reason they want to come to Australia is financial. I do not see this see as a noble endeavour at all, as safety, which is a basic human right, can be satisfied closer to home. However where I veer of course with those that oppose this intake is that I find this greed trait, aspiration to be rich and oh so corporate, a better match for our tedious corporate sponsor approved culture and increases chance of integration into our material society. We certainly do not offer too much in freedom anymore, where jokes even need the approval of suits and universities slaves to business instead of servants of the people.

The people left in camps around the world with no overriding desire to find money, only safety and the comfort of a familiar culture pull at my heart strings to a far greater extent, though I concede resettlement to our shores not always the best outcome for them. Australians have no issue generally with welcoming refugees so this childish sob story of my refugees are more worthy than yours is pathetic, especially given the almighty dollar sign is central to us being the destination.

Under Australian Law and International Law a person is entitled to make an application for refugee asylum in another country when they allege they are escaping persecution. Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution".

People who arrive on our shores without prior authorisation from Australia, with no documents, or false documents are not illegal. They are asylum seekers - a legal status under International Law.

Many Asylum seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation. In many cases oppressive authorities actively prevent normal migration processes from occurring.

'Illegals' are people who overstay their visas. The vast majority of these in Australia are from western countries, including 5,000 British tourists.

Since Menzies turned a blind eye after WWII to the flood of Nazis , and they (the Nazis) began to influence our polity by joining the backrooms of the “Liberal Party’’, we have lost our way.

Egon Kisch was a Jewish communist and anti-war activist he was a vocal critic of Adolf Hitler’s regime.
When Kisch wanted to come to visit Australia in 1934, Menzies pointed out that “every civilized country had the right to determine who should or should not be allowed in”, and that “since Kisch was a revolutionary and that revolution involved violence, he was not to be permitted entry”.

Did you notice that nothing has changed?

The present Tamil Asylum seekers would more than likely claim they were freedom fighters fleeing the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka; the same government that we recently saw, shell helpless civilian human shields, to compel Tamil Tigers to finally succumb.

Should we accept these people just as we accepted the defeated Nazis who got into Australia under the radar, while menzie pretended he was Lord Nelson?

The UNHCR has virtually set up a system to process asylum seekers, which must fail because are simply not enough protection officers to cope with the demands placed upon them, by providing a total of 30 people, including clerical assistants, who are responsible for asylum seekers in Indonesia, Brunei Darussalam, the Philippines, Malaya, Singapore and Timor Leste.

Of the 185 member states of the United Nations (UN) only ten have established annual resettlement quotas above and beyond their acceptance of persons arriving spontaneously at their borders. We have a quota of 12,000 per year over and above those who arrive at our borders. We made a commitment then, however, under Howard’s repudiation of that promise, we live with the dishonour of our word and of our forebears. Who by the way thought they had just fought a war against Hitler to make the world a better place.

Kevin Rudd should be ashamed that he so readily took up the torch we voters snatched from the hand of that political pigmy John Howard.

"Many Asylum seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation."

Anyone who believes that will believe anything.

People arriving by boat ARE illegal entrants. People found to be genuine refugees in accordance with UN criteria have status, but asylum seekers having 'legal status under international Law' is just another weirdy from the wild imagination of E.Sykes. The illegals would not pass UN muster (the UN is much tougher), and they know it; that's why they try for silly old Australia. They think that we are a joke.

While Sykes's attempted interpretation of any law concerning illegal entry to any country is all up a wattle, there is his added ignorance of the fact that international law is a lot of hocus pocus which no court in the world can enforce if a sovereign nations choses to ignore it.

Leigh, it is well established under our own law that it is not illegal for asylum seekers to enter Australian territory, by virtue of the fact that Australia remains a signatory to the UN Convention.

We know you don't like that fact, but a lie is still a lie no matter how many times you repeat it.

The Missus: << “Neurosis or mental illness (fear of hoons) is hardly a justification for anything except your own failings”. But a reason for asylum? >>

Possibly a good reason for committal to an asylum in your case.

Leigh,
You are correct- any person who is a non citizen requires a valid visa to enter Australia lawfully. Therefore that person is classed as an unlawfull entrant. THe DIAC uses the term a lot in their various fact sheets dealing with visas and related topics.

Untill such time as they apply for protection they are classed as unlawfull (a word meaning illegal) entrants. So we should continue to use the word 'illegals' when applied to those who have not yet applied for protection.

I prefer 'illegal alien' myself, which is even more accurate.

Those that go in to bat for the con artists, liars, cheats and bribers that the illegal aliens are, simply are trying to use terms they think sound nicer. They try to take the high moral ground but fail miserably because they have no compassion for the poor buggers in camps in various countries that are far more deserving of our help.

One wonders why they hate the genuine refugees so much that they ignore them and encourage deceitfull people to get ahead.

*Leigh & Banjo*
" ... "Many Asylum seekers are forced to leave their countries in haste and are unable to access appropriate documentation."

Anyone who believes that will believe anything. ... "

Methinks that you boyz have not known war, and not known suffering.

Why do I say this?

Let's imagine that we are in WWII germany. Now, let's imagine that Leigh is a retard, and Banjo is a poof.

Hmmm .. now what's the first thing that you'd do. I know, u'd put on pink and ?yellow? stars and go down to the nearest tin pot pom consulate, WITH YOUR DOCUMENTS, and present for a visa.

Seriously, whilst to some your comments may seem to be coherent in and of themselves, they are from my point of view completely divorced from reality.

..

Don't you think you'd cut your hair, change your clothes and appearance, get some fake ID if U were lucky, and try to sneek out somehow, maybe hitch a ride with a fisherman or whatever?

If the situation here deteriorated badly, u could bet they'd lock the airport down quick smart and I for one would not think twice about chartering a boat, irrespective of the status of the rest of the families paperwork.

.. as said in the other thread, the will to survive unites us all.

And then when boaties come here, at least they are easy to pick up and screen offshore. Nasties that come in under the cloak of legitimacy are far more of a concern I reckon.

DreamOn

quote "Hmmm .. now what's the first thing that you'd do. I know, u'd put on pink and ?yellow? stars and go down to the nearest tin pot pom consulate, WITH YOUR DOCUMENTS, and present for a visa."

They can get a passport though from what I read, unless they were members of LTTE. It appears likely the LTTE diaspora is funding these movements. There have also raised funds from human trafficking. So we welcome some in then they send the money for more to come, not a cycle I would generally support.

So is this true, that the general Tamil population cannot get a passport? I cannot see there is this problem, from what official documentation I can find. I do not think the Sri Lankan government would be hell bent on keeping them. LTTE members though, refused a passport, because they are listed as a known terrorism organisation and UN has confirmed their involvement in human rights abuses.

Many will flee for their lives..because they have been evil and involved in ethnic cleansing, child exploitation and war crimes. refused a passport so they cannot travel. I do need to hear how those Tamils not involved in LTTE cannot get documentation?

I am not an expert by a long way but the few Sri Lankans I know are spitting chips that some people are falling for these stories. Not easy to see a clear real picture.

DreamOn,

If it were me in WWII Germany, I would grab my documents, and escape to Switzerland any way I could. Then I would front up at an embassy in Switzerland and ask for asylum. I wouldn't continue on and pay top dollar trying to reach Australia on a rickety boat.

Noone has made any reply to my question earlier.

Once a "refugee" has escaped persecution in their own country, do they then cease to be considered a refugee?

Or does being persecuted in your own country give you a free pass to settle anywhere in the world?

Comments?

In nearly all emotional matters rhetoric, exaggeration and emotive slogans masquerade as truths, but they are essentially beliefs and do need to be logically challenged. It is all too easy for Greg Barns to write a few emotionally charged sentences laced with emotive phrases such as “grossest abuses of human rights” and “xenophobic underbelly of this island continent” and “he [Phillip Ruddock] and his prime minister John Howard, turned this nation's soul into a dark and menacing beast that was the shame of the world”.

Perhaps a more balanced and credible view can be obtained from well researched academic papers that put aside emotion and present factual information. On the detention center issue the following academic paper is perhaps well worth reading to balance Greg Barn’s strident and emotive rhetoric:

“Woomera: Hell Holes and Mandatory Detention of Illegal Immigrants” by Gary Klintworth, a former member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, which can be downloaded from:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/cart/download/free.php?paper=45

franklin,
A very interesting paper you gave us the link to.

I see it is from Monash Uni and from People and Place, but i could not find a date.

can you provide a date?

Banjo, you should learn to right-click on your mouse.

It's from 2001, and is an apologetic for the execrable Howard-era policy of detaining asylum seekers including children in the gulag that they created.

Rudd's approach isn't much better, but at least our government doesn't imprison and abuse refugee kids any more.

No you are right CJ, the Australian Government is now disgracefuly consigning them to the tender mercies of the Indonesians and pretending that's different from Howard's solution and what's more is utterly disgustingly trying to present that as an humanitarin action.

Come on CJ show us your decency and consistacy and that you are not as hypocritical as your 'do no wrong' hero, and criticize Kevvie the great sneaking gutless wonder. And do it in the same terms you critise Howard and those who supported his solution.

Unless you do you will be totally lacking in credibility.

keith, which part of "Rudd's approach isn't much better" didn't you understand?

I certainly don't regard Rudd as a "'do no wrong' hero". In fact, when it comes to asylum seekers I'm increasingly disappointed by his gutlessness. He should quit playing populist politics and do the decent and humanitarian thing by abolishing mandatory detention and the so-called 'Indonesian Solution' altogether.

so CJ what do you want him to do?

Do you think we need secure borders or should we just let any refugees or anyone who claims to be a refugee to enter and stay in Australia... that could be any number up to 10 million. I know that's a silly figure but more than a third of that number of recognised refugees are in our part of the world. Should we allow that number in or mabybe only half a million or 2 or 3 hundred thousand. Then how do we stop those above that number once we've decided there are too many for Australia to accommodate?

I think these are reasonable questions, and before you criticise anyone elses efforts, you need to have positive answers to them. Without that substance you'd be merely ranting and would lack all credibility in most peoples eyes.

Cheers

*Posted by burbs, Friday, 23 October 2009 6:44:23 AM*

" ... If it were me in WWII Germany, I would grab my documents, and escape to Switzerland any way I could. Then I would front up at an embassy in Switzerland and ask for asylum. I wouldn't continue on and pay top dollar trying to reach Australia on a rickety boat. ... "

I don't think so *Burble*

Your mates would tell you for sure, do not be caught being retarded/disabled, or gay, or gypsy or jew, or they will take your cash, take your jewellery, take your paintings, the title to your home, the gold from your teeth, and if you were physically attractive, probably rape U for good measure,

AND THEN send you to be gassed, barbequed and turned into fertiliser.

Better to try your luck with fake or no ID I reckon. The historians would be able to tell us what the best asylum strategies were.

I agree with CJ, gutless both the red and the blue are.

Just stand up and say something like, F__k 'em. we don't care and don't want to know. There's too many refugees and we don't want the cost or the responsibility, instead of pretending to be something you're not.

keith - as I've said many times at OLO, I think we should completely abolish 'skilled' immigration and similar programs, and increase our intake of bona fide refugees substantially. We should also be far more proactive in our diplomatic efforts to reduce 'push' factors and to establish some kind of fair and orderly offshore assessment facilities.

Until that happens, I'd be comfortable with increasing Australia's quota of acceptance of genuine refugees (as defined under the 1951 and 1967 UN Conventions) to the level at which we currently accept economic immigrants.

People who arrive in Australia by whatever means and seeling asylum should be allowed to live in the community while their bona fides are being established - as expeditiously as possible.

I hope that's clear enough for you.

so CJ you want to replace our present immigration policy with one that only accepts refugees? Is that a fair assumption?

That's a valid view but I think an unrealistic one which will result in a dramatc fall in living standards.

So our current level of immigration is about ... what ... 130,000 p.a with approx refugees at 13,000 (2008-09)?

It's fair to assume at that point you'd enact some sort of border protection scheme, so that, as you say, we'd have 'some kind of fair and orderly offshore assessment facilities'.

Admirable CJ that's exactly what all those people you are critising want.

The only difference between them and you is the type of immigrant that is acceptable.

You only want refugees and they mostly want skilled, family reunion and with a smaller intake of refugees. I'll be fair to you and allow that you'd also accept family reunion types and hey you'd have to accept we'd get boat loads of skilled people arriving pretending to be refugees (because under your scheme they'd all be banned).

So assume that is correct, then really the only difference between you and everyone else is the mix of the people who make up the quota of immigration.

So why are you so angry with everyone who thinks the mix should not favour unskilled refugees?
;-)
cheers
Keith

Replace all the skilled immigration with refugees?

For someone that pontificates on economic issues, it is one of the most vacuous suggestions I have ever heard.

The skilled immigrants fill positions that can't be filled locally, enable the creation of further jobs, boost the economy, add income to the coffers of the government and generally compensate for the wads of cash that have to be spent on the illiterate refugees to be housed, etc.

It is the type of suggestion I would have expected from a bleeding heart with the IQ of a peanut.

keith - I don't "only want refugees". Given that Australia's population already exceeds its sustainable carrying capacity, I'd rather we didn't have any immigrants at all. However, when there are so many genuine refugees in the world I could live with accepting more people on the basis of need rather than economic aspiration, at least on a temporary basis. Please note that I said "to" the level of current 'skilled' migration, not "at" that high level.

Despite the disingenuous bleating of some, it's well-established that the numbers of asylum seekers in the world fluctuate due to so-called 'push' factors. The current spike in our region is clearly due mostly to the fallout from the Sri Lankan civil war.

Shadow Minister: << For someone that pontificates on economic issues >>

Yes, you do tend to, don't you? Personally, I tend to avoid economic comment because it's not area in which I have any great expertise.

Sorry CJ,

I had you confused with someone who had inkling of economics.

Statements like "I could live with accepting more people on the basis of need rather than economic aspiration" shows that skilled immigration is not an area in which you have great expertise either.

Skilled migrants are not begging to come to Australia, rather, Australian businesses have to compete with other countries for the engineers, doctors etc.

I have myself brought over engineers and technicians with skills unavailable here from "disadvantaged" countries such as Canada, England, South Africa, and had to pay a bomb to do so. The industry I am in managed to reap far more value than they paid.

Similarily Australians are being head hunted for positions around the globe, and no one is stupid enough to suggest that they are economic refugees.

Hang on CJ, you've now confused everything ... what do you want?

Is it

1. 'I think we should completely abolish 'skilled' immigration and similar programs, and increase our intake of bona fide refugees substantially.'

2. '...increasing Australia's quota of acceptance of genuine refugees...to the level at which we currently accept economic immigrants.'(And I don't understand the splitting of hairs over 'to' and 'at'.)

3. 'I don't "only want refugees".'

4.'I could live with accepting more people on the basis of need rather than economic aspiration,...'

or 5. 'I'd rather we didn't have any immigrants at all.'

You've sort of covered all possibilities except the Howards policy and Rudds equally confusing policy setup. Want to have a go at doing that too?

;-)

If you think I am laughing at you ... well I am not, but I am smiling at the different positions you are adopting with each of your postings. And remember they are on the public record.

keith, while you may or may not be laughing at me, you're most definitely playing convoluted games in order to justify your own untenable ethical position.

My position's quite simple. As an environmentalist, I recognise that Australia's human population has already exceeded the country's carrying capacity. I therefore would like Australia's population to stabilise as quickly as possible, and ideally to reduce over time. A corollary of this is that I oppose the kind of mass 'skilled' and economic immigration that has been encouraged by successive governments of whatever persuasion.

However, as a humanist I recognise that there are many people in other parts of the world who have had to abandon their homes, communities and everything they know because of war, persecution, famine and other calamities. I recognise and support Australia's obligations under the UN Convention. It would be great if any of our governments of late had also recognised these realities and our obligations, but they seem more interested in trying to avoid them.

Therefore, the short term solution seems to me to axe the economic immigration program, in favour of accommodating people in real need in substantially greater numbers than we have been to date. Meanwhile, address the 'push' factors by more assertive diplomatic means, and participating in the cooperative establishment of the kinds of 'queues' that don't currently exist, but which the refugee-bashers demand. Perhaps the influx of significant numbers of genuine refugees might prompt our government to look beyond the next election towards more sustainable approaches.

[cont]

I'll tell you what we don't want, and that is for children to be locked up indefinitely, in the presence of distressed adults, particularly post the Australian Society of Psychiatrists advising that to do so is to terribly risk their mental health, which often leads to permanent neurological damage as has occured, and we have had a retired judge testify in this place visa vi same.

To do so, in my view, constitutes child abuse, and thus those responsible are, yep, you guessed it, arguably child abusers.

This place and all the way back to england has of course a long history of abusing children doesn't it?

..

And what else is there? Oh yes. I seem to recall, visa vi the so called sri lankan push factor, that the chinese armed them up and with the addition of the new weapons they decimated the Tamils? Do I recall correctly on that? And where else? Oh yes. Darfur. Another delightful display by the Tienamin butchers. And last but not least, we have had our own dear *Prince Harry* testify that his buddies legs got blown off in Afghanistan by yes indeed folks, chinese rockets.

But you Luv the chinese guvment don't ya *Shadow?* They give us money don't they ey mate? And that's what important ey? The economics. Human Rights are not to be connected with trade ey? Is that how it goes?

<CENSORED>

I note *Bruce Haigh's* comments currently on ABC re his view that australia should have remained impartial on the matter of the Tamil conflict.

And at the UN Human Right's NGO conference in Geneva in 2000, one individual went so far as to inquire as to why it was, pursuant to the principles of self determination, that the tamils couldn't be recognised as a state party for purposes of the relevant international court? The Sri Lankans allegedly tried to have the individual tossed out, but were unsuccessful.

;-)

I did also note though what appeared to be a hate filled Tamil gathering at the same time. Such a waste of Human Life.

I agree with Shrode. Yes, these refugees should be 'processed', and their credentials checked. But why is it necessary to incarcerate them, while this process is carried out?
Whatever happened to the concept of 'innocent, until proven guilty'?
Incarceration is not only unfair, it is bloody expensive. These people, if genuine refugees, would probably be delighted for the chance to work in Australia, while their claims are processed.
The taxes they pay could be used to deport the ones who don't deserve sanctuary.
Frankly, Howard and Ruddock made me -for the first time in my life- ashamed to be Australian.
Whatever happened to the 'Land of The Fair Go'?

Boys,boys, please why cant we have some common equanimity instead of bitter recriminations, abuse and name calling. Is it brinkmanship, we are targeting, or some illusive masculine penis envy ? Whatever, in essence, you've become the laughing stock of OLO, squabbling amongst yourselves, like galahs in a chook-pen. All parroting aimlessly, as to who should become ' boss cocky '.
Who really cares ?

There is no better fool, than an old fool.

That this debate, in my recollection has been ' done-over ' 6x times. from all perspectives, with well over 300 responses and opinions, is proof-positive, there will NEVER be consensus.

Without adding fuel to the inferno, we should all settle down, and rationally explore the equation. Rudd and Gillard are absolutely right in calling for a revamp of our Educational system, with emphasis on numeracy, literacy, and importantly our History.

Timeline milestones.
1824-1908. Aust Racial History encompassing Qld, NSW, WA, SA, Tas, & NT. Genesis of the Stolen Generation. Genocide. Mass annihilation of the Aboriginal ( Indegenous ) Race.
1850. Gold Rush. Lambing Flat debacle.
1860-61. Kanaka deportations
1901-1972. Architect: Alfred Deakin. " WAP discriminates against people according to their skin colour. Was based on the assumption that some one with a " white " skin is superior to a person with a different skin colour. This implies that customs, values, ans beliefs of people with white skin were also superior."
This policy is an example of overt discrimination, racism and xenophobia at it's worst.

1901. Immigration Restriction Act. One of the first Acts of Aust New Parliament, upon Federation.
1958. Migration Act.
1971-75. Vietnamese boat asylum seekers arrive.
1973.WAP for all practically purposes considered defunct ?
1975. Gough Whitlam introduces Racial Descrimination Act.
2001. Tampa Affair, involving another Nation.i.e. Norway.
2004.SievX Affair.
2005. Cronulla Riots.
2007. Pauline Hanson's One Naion Party emerge.
2009. Attacks on Indian students. Sri Lankan refugees arrive.

It wasn't only Howard who trumped the Race card, to boost his credentials / credibility and win Elections. Manifestly, it was a reckless gambit employed by Barton, Hughes, Stanley Bruce, Arthur Calwell and Harold Holt.

Politicians of all persuasions, at one time or another, resort to gutter tactics.

" There are only two forces that unite men: fear and self-interest " Napoleon Bonaparte.
" Who is more foolish, the child afraid of the dark, or the adult afraid of the Light ? " Anonymous.

Xenophobia: Fear or dislike of strangers or the unknown, sometimes used to describe Nationalistic Political beliefs and movements. Used extensively in Fictional work, to describe morbid fears and dislikes of Space Aliens !

Phobias, fears,anxieties, manias, terrors, panics, and angst all contribute to our abhorrence of certain situations and things. If allowed to take possession of the mind, these insights become self-forged chains.

So what may I ask, with a History spanning two centuries, amply documented in the National Archives (ACT) and Libraries, throughout the land, can we seriously exculpate ourselves from ?

Grim wonders why the refugees can't work while their claims are being processed. I think we would be foolish to allow this with the way some groups in the world are intent on violence to get their own way.

Many refugees arrive without any identification. Processing their claims and obtaining information about them may take ages. Allowing them unsupervised into the community would be madness until we know they won't prove to be a problem.

I get angry thinking about all the awful refugee camps around the world where other poor souls are also trying to emigrate to Australia, and they will take much longer to get processed than those that push their way to the front of the cue by paying to get here illegally