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.