good, agreed, thanks.

There was an article a few years ago about the invasion threat to Australia. The article pointed out the it wasn't a military invasion but a human one.

The issue of refugees is a difficult one. However it could easliy be manipulated because it would appear the Australia is a soft touch.

Sadly our states are not prepared for the predicted population growth. The foundations have yet to be laid by our state pollies, right now we have water restrictions, public transport is failing, there are not enough public hospital beds.

Sure the increasing level of traffic is really, really annoying.

Sadly for many countries the people that they need to stay, to make their country a better place, leave.

There is plenty of evidence to see that the LTTE were financed by the Tamil diaspora in the west. Loads.

I have no problem with accepting people from anywhere but if I cannot even have a say in how it is managed without being persecuted for my opinion then perhaps I should seek asylum elsewhere. It is still a democracy last I looked.

Such a vexed issue this immigration debate!

Has it occurred to the people who feel most deeply and are most vocal about this issue, as I am sure there are many, that most people who migrate from their country of origin do it for a very good reason?

Silly question you may ask but would it not be more sensible for the most vocal among us to focus our attention on doing something about the source of the problem instead of band-aiding the result? Why are we not targeting AusAid and NGO's who work in these countries to promote education of women, family planning and health instead of trying to find homes for millions of displaced people. We could be good world citizens and take our whole population (22 million) in as refugees every year and it would not rate a mention in the "Mumbai Times" or "Beijing Bugle" let alone consider what it would do to our quality of life here if this were to happen. Not even an issue worth considering so why do we take any at all, just the lucky few and good luck to them.

We need to rethink our attitude to population in holistic terms instead of carping on about a few boat people, after all Australia is a poor second choice for most who would much prefer to stay in their country of origin if there weren't starving or being shot at! When are we going to get a Government leader with enough balls to face the issue of population pressure front on and do something about it while we have some resources to bring to bare on the problem. Why can we not set an example here and say "that's enough" and deal with the fictitious economic problem of a stable sustainable population.

I mean it doesn't make sense. The Tamils are clearly racist and seek to maintain racial and cultural purity and they are poor refugees. But we simply question the method of arrival and are branded racist, xenophobe, scared of invaders etc. Maybe you should start preaching to the Tamils instead. Learn to love multicultural society and your fellow man tell them, do not blow them up becxause of their race. Tell those that really need such a lesson. Instead we allow them their fundraising for terrorism based along racial lines. Does not make sense.

However if such a reason for war exists perhaps we should recruit them to assist us in white racial purity for ourselves. Now that maybe worth compassion as freedom fighters wanting cultural and racial homogeny is then a worthy cause worth hero status, apparently.

The author mentioned the Norwegian vessel the Tampa and how 'unfair' it was for Australian authorities were. The author believes that refugees should be accepted at face value because he believes that almost all are genuine.

By comparison it is interesting that in the first six months of 2008 Norway, which would be considered 'soft' by many, rejected 59% of its claimed refugees as not genuine cases.

Media reports have already noted that some of the 78 Sri Lankan 'refugees' on the Australian customs vessel in Indonesia were in fact living in Indonesia before trying their luck with Australia.

If Norway can easily prove that 59% of its refugees are frauds just what is the Australian government thinking of with its almost automatic acceptance of all of those who arrive by boat or plane as 'refugees'?

Why is it so wrong for Australia to decide who is a genuine refugee when it is OK for Norway and every other country to do the same?

I don't mind measured and reasonable articles on this subject - but this is just a hostile rant that is selective in it's quotes and downright dishonest ..

For instance "Such repetitive nonsense took place in August 2001 etc etc there were, many argued, bin Laden supporters hoping to infiltrate Australia on derelict vessels.

Who were "the many" of "many argued" ..?

Why was there any fear of Bin Laden in August 2001?

That was one month before Osama Bin Laden was blamed for the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Centre in New York.

This appears to be an outright lie. Correct me if I am wrong.

MP Wilson Tuckey, like him or not, is an elected member of our parliament, by a community whose attitudes he reflects since they continually re-elect him.

Comments he made, are the same as MP Michael Danby, ALP, said back in May.

I note you choose to leave that out?

Why is that?

Dog whistling perhaps?

FYI .. the major difference between people who arrive by air and overstay their visas and these boat people is, most boat people conceal their identities. (We know who overstays their visa when they arrive by air)

Why should we not be suspicious of people who decide to be anonymous?

Do they have something to hide?

".. unhinged and paranoid", appears to describe your behaviour, more than MP Wilson Tuckey, though yours appears to be of fellow Australians.

His suspicion, and ALP MP Michael Danby's, is of people who want anonymity, from the people they want to save them from whatever it is they "say" they are running from.

They lack honesty about their past and identity, but are going to be good "honest" citizens .. right?

The anonymous manner in which they come to Australia creates unease, that's why it is emotive (duh).

We have some choices to make about immigration, but it is far from settled in our community and articles like this are no credit whatever to the debate.

When talking about the Sri Lankan Tamils we are confusing the terms "illegal immigrants" and "asylum seekers".

Get one thing quite clear. Asylum for these people is very much closer..the land of their origins and where they have been visiting all these years. It's not only closer but a hell of a lot safer. It's not asylum they are after.There's no local CentreLink anywhere in Tamil Nadu or free medical aid.

They want to settle here. They are "illegally here.

Friends of ours from South Africa had to wait 2 years before they were called up for their qualifying tests. One is an ex-pat Brit doctor and the other is a highly credentialled physioThey were given 1) an argumentative esay 2) a comtrehension test, they had to listen to a CD recording taped report and were then questioned about it( answers had to be written!) and then they were subjected to i/2 hour face to face interviews. Ofcourse they passed. When they got here they had to qualify to practice.
Shouldnt all immigrants have to go through the same process and then be tested to accept their o'seas qualifications? There are Iraqi and Paki doctors preactising after failing their qualifying their accreditation tests!! Where is there any justice in our immigration policy?

There is discrimination of the most blatant kind in practice but Aussies arent aware of it. You only need to blow in on leaky boats and claim immigration and we are scared to apply the same stringent conditions to them. I know who I would rather have as my neighbours. Do I sound as though I am discriminating? Ofcourse I AM. The government is my mentor in this. I am only too happy to follow their example.

socratease

'The election of the Rudd government was meant to be a watershed in various policies adopted and practiced by the previous regime, keen practitioners of “fear” strategies.'

And here lies the problem that the gullible and the Howard/Bush haters became so embittered that they refused to accept any logic. Obama/Rudd are now having to show some leadership which they have failed at miserably. Mr Rudd has said sorry but things are at very best no better for the indigenous people, he has signed the Kyoto farce which at best has achieved nothing. Mr Obama has received a peace award and yet Afghanistan is is a mess. The message of encouragement to people putting their lives at great risk to the boat people has ended in untold misery. Now he is trying to revert to Mr Howard's sensible policies of not encouraging people putting kids lives at risk. If Mr Howard had made such a mess as Rudd has the self righteous left media would be hounding and hounding. Instead they are trying to get a view from the hapless me to Turnbull. Quite pathetic.

Another racist rant from Kampmark. How dare Australia have the cheek to be at all interested in protecting itself, eh?

Not that his comment about a “military threat” to Australia is at all relevant to the problem of uninvited, illegal interlopers who wish to over-ride Australia’s controlled intake of refugees.

Kampmark likens the ‘Indonesian solution’ to the previous government’s Pacific Solution. He is totally wrong, of course. The previous government actually stopped the boats. Since the Ocean Viking circus, two more boatloads of illegals have arrived in our waters. And, although the Indonesians have demonstrated that they don’t want the illegals to stay with them (apart from the President who is apparently not as powerful as we have been led to believe), I haven’t noticed anything from Kampmark making the same slurs against the protesting Indonesians as he levels at us.

And, given that Rudd has now decided to enlarge the Christmas Island facility, how can Kampmark compare anything Rudd does with the previous government’s solution? On top of actually encouraging illegals to turn up when he disbanded the Pacific Solution, he is now extending the invitation by making extra room for more to come!

I have never noticed any Australia politician or officials reacting in the “near-hysterical” way in relation to “fantasies of invasion” in the matter of illegal entrants that Kampmark accuses them of doing. Poor old Wilson Tuckey has referred to the possibility of Tamil Tigers being among the recent Sri Lankan illegals, and the Australian Tamil community has agreed with him. Hardly ‘invasion’ talk.
call one of your own ‘racist’, you might like to think about this bloke for a change.
Kampmark even talks tripe about ANZUS. So far away from and discussion on illegal entry! He even seeks to call us ‘racist’ because of a statement by a Colonel Blimp in 1938!

Kampmark was certainly in an anti-Australian mood when he decided to churn out this piece of drivel.

Continued...

I noticed there is a poll today asking whether we should take a “softer approach to the ILLEGAL refugees,” It is currently running at 6 to 1 against.
It does not reflect well on our nation.
Many people voting no in this poll may well have been refugees or migrants who were fortunate enough to have an embassy, and the due process to apply for this wonderful opportunity to come to our shores.
I wonder what they would have done if they had not been accepted and then had the opportunity to come here by an alternative method. Even if they were not being intimidated, threatened or exterminated when they decided to applied to Immigrate to Australia, because they thought that this would be a better place to bring up the kids..

It may have been their families sitting out there in a leaky boat at the time.
Instead they are now able to sit back enjoying a Fosters and Mackas,’ happily giving their opinions on whether or not there should be a softer approach on the current ILLEGAL asylum seekers.
It embarrasses me to admit, as I have had to in recent years, that we have become a very racist and intolerant nation.
These people currently in the spotlight on the Ocean Viking, as were the people on the Tampa and others, are human beings. They have found themselves in a situation none of us would like to be in. I, for one have sympathy for them and wish them well.
Are they Illegal Refugees or Asylum Seekers? Let’s get them off the ships and find out. Figures from the previous governments’ exercises show overwhelmingly that a vast majority are in fact REFUGEES who deserve asylum.
Get on with it and fulfil our obligations as a humane society. If they were sheep, dogs, cattle or horses out there on the ship, there would be total outrage.
I wish people would take a step back and have a good look themselves as human beings and not for whom they voted for at any of the previous elections.

...continued

My memory of Q & A last Thursday is that “No one cared, or dared, to answer” the question about the illegals who flew in was because Tony Jones ruled it as a comment. We all know that the lazy incompetents of our laughing-stock of an immigration department should be doing something about the airborne illegals, too. But that doesn’t mean that we should continue to tolerate illegal boats, as Kampmark seems to think.

Hooked on his ‘scaredy-cat’ and ‘invasion’ beliefs as he is, Kampmark overlooks the fact that everyone but the wet-Left in this country, while accepting orderly refugee intakes, simply does not want people coming here in boats now matter who they are. And, they are coming here illegally. Even those who have been found to be genuine refugees are not entitled to choose the country they want to go to.

I am happy to call them all as refugees, they can stay in India or Packistan or Sri Lanka.

I do not go around saying I am a refugee and that I should be living in Buckingham Palace. If I get to stay in Buckingham Palace, please call me a refugee.

I have no issue with accepting refugee, but refugee should not make the decision on who comes to Australia. It should not be up to the Smuggler and how wealthy the refugees are to decide who gets to go where.

All the people, who are complaining are favouring a system where the rich only get into Australia and the people smuggler gets millions. We should not be rewarding people smugglers who puts lives in danger or the rich "refugees"

First let's define "refugee". A person who has been forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution or natural disaster".
Having done that why were the Tamils taken to Indonesia? They were picked up by an Australian ship which could have brought them to Australia, done all the paperwork and then allowed those who were eligible for "refuge" to stay.
We are talking about people who have the same thoughts, desires amd aims as we have.
Why are there so many Australians who appear to be terrified because someone looks a little different or speaks a different language.
My congratulations to the writer of this piece. Please keep writing until you drum some commonsense into the insular little people many of us are!

Why are there so many Australians who appear to be terrified because someone looks a little different or speaks a different language.
Hilily,
I don't believe there are many at all. What most people object to, not fear, is that many of those who come here don't do so to start a "new life" as such because they don't discard the causes which supposedly caused them to become refugees in the first place. Any country devoid of fanaticism is fertile ground for the gradual importing of that vice.

Binoy Kampmark states that it has been shown that the boat people have an extraordinarily high rate of being accepted as refugees once they are processed. Binoy Kampmark needs to realise that determination and verification of refugee status is in itself a highly subjective process.

Paul Sheehan wrote an informative book entitled “The Electronic Whorehouse” which detailed bias in the media on various issues. In a chapter on the breathtaking bias of the ABC on the asylum seeker issue he gave the interesting statistic that in Indonesia in 2001 the UNHCR rejected 80% of asylum seekers as not being in need of protection, rising to 95% in the cases of Iranians applying for unhcr protection. This contrasts markedly with the high acceptance rate for those asylum seekers arriving in Australia’s migration zone. The reality was that the usual practice for almost all asylum seekers was to destroy their identity papers and travel documents, which made the determination of their identities and verification of their stories of persecution and return to their countries of residence or origin a very time consuming, difficult and costly task. Those found not to be in need of protection withheld all cooperation for return to their countries of residence and filed appeal after appeal. In the end the government took the soft option and most were granted protection.

Further illustration was the case of a boat that departed from Cambodia for Australia in July 2001 with 241 Afghans and Pakistanis on board. The boat was intercepted before the asylum seekers destroyed their documentation and most were found to be carrying Pakistani or Afghan passports, many Afghan documents indicating long term residency of Pakistan. Only 14 of 241 (6%) were accepted by the UNHCR as refugees.

This is very simple.

Australia decides who is allowed to settle in Australia.

Surrendering Australia’s right of selection is to surrender to "migratory anarchy", the thoughts and results of which would be intolerable to the vast majority of law abiding and voting Australians.

Whilst we are talking about refugees and compliance with conventions, we should consider the equality of Australia with those countries who did not sign up to this and other conventions.

The nature of world politics and international relations and economic balance has shifted within the 60 odd years since the convention was signed.

I would suggest the best place for migratory Tamils was back in India. I see little complaining by refugee advocates regarding India’s decision not to sign the 1951 convention.

If countries of mass population, like India and China, the new “economic tigers”, continue to operate a waiver on accepting refugees, maybe Australia should consider the validity of a convention which lacks absolute support among countries.

Regarding queue jumping.. whilst refugees exist who have lodged valid applications for refugee visas and those visas are deferred because economic refugees and bought their way here on boats… the regardless of the ultimate “validity” of these economic refugee applications the queue has been jumped and an immoral advantage given to those who are seen to be the more vexatious applicant.

here they all are again..the same meaningless xenophobic right wing rants. i am ashamed to be livin on the same planet as you lot let alone the same country. what disgusting views you consistently express on these issues of who is "allowed" to come here, how appalling a model these views are for your children and grandchildren. there are of course, decent australians, who know what the law is, and understand their and their families potential contribution to the real multicultural world, very few of them seem to bother with this on line journal..i wonder why? ;-)

E.Sykes,
Far too many are confused re the definition of right wing rants & the myth of multiculturalism. What you appear to misinterpret is the difference between reality & off-the-rail left wing idealism.

E.Sykes why not put forward some meaningful argument or reasons why Australia should just open the doors and let everyone in - we all tire of your silly little tantrums about anyone who dares hold a differing opinion.

Come on, put some effort in .. not just the dummy spit, which is as regular as clockwork.

Oh and the "meaningless xenophobic right wing rants" is clearly misunderstood by you or you just are so angry you can't think straight - if they were meaningless, why do they bother you?

Those are opinions, like them or not, this is still a democracy though it appears you'd like it to be a little less democratic and only "meaningful multicultural left wing rants" are allowed .. yes?

So many people who post on OLO have anger management issues, why is that? E.Sykes, you hated the Howard government, now you have redirected your hate to anyone disagreeing - "am ashamed to be livin on the same planet as you lot let alone the same country." so leave, check out and relieve us of your ill temper.

I have no problem explaining to my children and grandchildren why I feel the way I do, I don't see why I should have this "Australia is a nirvana everyone should come here and we'll all share everything" view - you might, I don't nor do many others. I've worked hard for my family to be in a good position, I'm not going to give that away because of intolerance in other countries - it's not my problem, nor do I appreciate you trying to insinuate it is my problem. Australia has a migrant intake, and that's fine and reasonable.

Many countries have NO migrant intake or refugee intake at all, why not direct your anger at them, so go take on Japan, South Korea, China for starters .. let us all know how you get on, please.

E Syles “i am ashamed to be livin on the same planet as you lot let alone the same country.”

Well don’t let me stop you from migrating to some other country.. or planet, for that matter

So long as you take your whoosy sentimental notions with you!

“how appalling a model these views are for your children and grandchildren”

No… what a stupid example you present for your children and grand children.

My children were taught to accept the rule of law..

yours are obviously being taught the merits of anarchy and the notion of “endless entitlement” with no respect for the rights of others to hold a dissenting viewpoint.

And as for “multiculturalism” .. it will be swept aside by assimilation… t

rust me, I am from Anglo-Saxon stock… the very name represents the assimilation of two originally separate cultures and ethnicities into one (along with Celts, Danes, Ancient Brits, Romans, Normans and quite a few other races along the way).

The only thing Multiculturalism will produce is division and ghettos.

Assimilation will always prevail… because it cannot be stopped.

Rpg “Many countries have NO migrant intake or refugee intake at all, why not direct your anger at them, so go take on Japan, South Korea, China for starters .. let us all know how you get on, please.”

Add India to that list, rpg, which would be the closest and most natural place for these economic migrants to go to, instead of coming to Australia….. but welfare payments are not so good there.

rpg,
I recently read that with all the refugees in the world, the UNHCR has only 20 countries that will take any.

Australia takes the third largest quota. I don't think that is to scoff at. E Sykes should face a bit of reality. His rants are not worth the effort to reply.

The rule of law:

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.

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

There no queues for people to jump. There is no standard refugee process where people wait in line to have their applications considered. Few countries between the Middle East and Australia are signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and as such asylum seekers are forced to continue to travel to another country to find protection.

There remains no evidence that any asylum seekers who arrived by boat have any connection to terrorism. Those who perpetrated the September 11 attacks did not arrive in the United States as Asylum Seekers. They flew first class with valid papers.

In fact, I have never argued that people may not express an opinion, but I do claim my right to disagree with the stated opinions of others: the stated opinions here are in my opinion, in the main, xenophobic right with rubbish with no basis in fact whatsoever.

altogether now:

Beneath our radiant Southern Cross
We’ll toil with hearts and hands;
To make this Commonwealth of ours
Renowned of all the lands;
For those who’ve come across the seas
We’ve boundless plains to share;
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair.

The criteria for refugee status varies amongst western nations. There is no set mantra and is why the Australian Government is so keen for UNHCR to process the claims offshore. The UN do believe people are best resettled back in their community. Even though American movies make our society look attractive the reality is very far from that for many. Europe is spending millions upon million in airfares to send back disillusioned asylum seekers.

When we signed the UN convention we had no welfare or medicare. It was for a charity to support or extended family. If we want open border we would have to lose social policy. Even my family never had anything and paid for 10 years medical debt incurred on arrival and kept captive in migrant camps. You see even worse now in Europe.

It is known fact that terrorist supporters are given residence in the west, they hardly hide it. Shame they never supported the people instead choosing violence. But the west Tamil Diaspora is well known to finance the Tamil Tiger organisation to the tune of millions. To suggest otherwise is ignorance. To suggest it is ok is against UN guideline that those who fight are simply not eligible for refugee status. Non involved civilians only. Those that break the law simply are not eligible for refugee status. I would say hijackinga an Australian vessel should disqualify them according to UN law. I wish we would follow it.

E Sykes

I assume you'd despise anyone whose treatment of refugees is worst than Australias alledgely inhumane Pacific Solution and equally you'd not want to share the planet with them. Pack your bags for most countries on this planet have policies worst than Australia's Pacific solution.
I'll cite two in our region. India routinely returns Tamil asylum seekers. Why? Public opinion. You see Indians en masse rejected Tamils for resettlement after the murder of The Indian PM Ghandi alledgely by a couple of Tamils who, it is claimed, thought Ghanhi and thei Indian Government shouldn't show support for the democratically elected Sri Lankian Government.
Singapore does notr take any humanitarian immgrants, asylum seekers who arrive on the horizon are intercepted, refuelled, have their water and food supplies topped up , and are assisted on their way ... obviously their destination becomes Australia.

New criticise the rest of the world , will you? ... or leave.