If I got it right, that is what I heard Kevin07 say about people
smugglers. Now either our Kev is confused here, or he is playing
politics.

Fact is that people smugglers are business people, responding to
market demands. Given the "land of milk and honey" conditions now
being offered by Australia, of course demand will increase!

Don't blame people smugglers, they are simply fullfilling a market
demand, created by Kev and Co.

Fact is, there are at any one time, around 20 million refugees and we
cannot take them all.

Fact is that that if Kev is happy to take asylum seekers, then he
should not blame those folk who supply a service to those poor
asylum seekers, like providing transport to the land of milk and honey.

I smell distinct hypocracy here.

Fact is that Kev is creating demand, why is he amazed that the
market responds with supply?

It is an astonishing revelation by Kevi, by referring to Human smugglers trading in the misery of others as scum ;

- It is an admission by subtext of his statement that reveals he has changed his position , and concedes that Socialism and any part of its Ideological sickness and paradigm shifts of massive propaganda campaigns ,Media and Government agencies also trades in Human Misery – it even creates Human misery to create self Tax dollar opportunity to disperse more vial idiocy, ; Proletariat.

Knowing how the Labour party cartel operates in Australia, and its Subsidiary Industrial arms, (Public Service and Buraorocrats , Media propaganda outlets , it would not even be a big surprise if we found out People smugglers and there Cartels were a contributor to the Labour Party coffers.

Now we know Kevin despises people who trade in Human Misery , and rightfully names them Low Scum- That is one hell of an admission.

So Kevi is only engaging in Methane generating publicity and propaganda relations.

The media portrays the Premier of W A as the evil doer here, for telling you what he knows; I guess this is what is meant by – Paradigm Shift.

I suspect Rudd’s trying to have it both ways –as he is becoming somewhat renowned for.

He plays to the pro-refugee/human rights lobby by watering down the controls –AND, I suspect he’ll end up accepting virtually all who land . But at the same time he wants to be seen to be taking a tough stand.

It’s not about ‘fine lines’, or punishing the ‘real culprits’ –it’s pure politicking.

By the way, that 20 million figure is only those waiting with bags packed at this moment , each of those 20 million will have a contingent of wives, sisters, brothers cousins, uncles, aunts et al. waiting to follow.

i supose continueing on with the theme[this fits in with may they rot in hell, its about the usa epa[decaring a 60 nday 'discussion period' re decaring carbon a real and present danger

http://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=gd&q=epa+declares+carbon+60+days&hl=en-GB&rls=MEDA,MEDA:2008-36,MEDA:en-GB

so they can tax us on it [so the derivitives speculators can get their new carbon tax credits to speculate with], of all the real poisens out there carbon is a red herring, but its a game of many parts[first they need to decare carbon a danger, then tax you on everything you buy or sell based on the lie

even potatoes [food] will be charged premptivly for the energy they will use to be cooked..lol.. 15 credits to cook a potato, then more tax on your electicity and gas, then more carbon credits for that derivitives mob to speculate into the next bubble[carbon trading],

then govt charging us for avoidance, or non compliance, with your kids spying on you because they become the new natzie youth[oops sorry carbon cops..reporting on the poisens you create when you breath

but hey it wont affect you right
wrong you just dont know how much
nor how much the carbon tax speculators of wall street will bid the carbon credit up to[imagine cornering the limited carbon credit market

the fed can make all the fiat it needs
then buy them up
then charge the max , the carbon creators can afford to pay simply to eat or breath, your not just a carbon tax avoider by a producer of poisenous gas[carbon]will you have your credit allowing you to buy or sell?

dont be inj a hurry to cash in your carbon credit[thjey get reduced every year[so expect a shortage of supply[and you just gotta know that makes the price go up...lol

It is very amusing I suppose, these idiots have turned every conceivable lie into a commodity, and based on your thoughts, Refugee- Illegal migration numbers (Commodities) in the idiot sphere are the equivalent of Carbon Tax credits, so flood Australia with them – and a 30 thousand dollars (AU) a pop, The bureaucrats and party hacks are busting to get some of that loot.. It beats working for a living like us other peasants. Especially when we are so stupid we pay for it through Statutory Taxation.

I wonder if the Market in Misery and People smuggling and trading is actually not another Industry headed by a ALP branch President Underling.
A seven step covert operation perhaps. That’s how Cartels work ; isn’t it ?

Consider the irony – in the seventeenth century; when a Dutch King had invoked a wind Tax on Wind mills to raise money for his opulent and depraved lifestyle.
And How Nothing Changes when dealing with looting witchdoctors.

There had been such an adverse public reaction, and a counter revolution, he became no longer a monarch.
A good history lesson to be read.

And they use to trade in Opium poppies as investments also – replacing Gold- Dear oo me.

Something has gone wrong with the definition of the metaphysics.It is now Abstract Surrealism psychosomatic .

Fact is that drug dealers are business people, responding to
market demands. Given the "land of milk and honey" conditions now
being offered by Australia, of course demand will increase!

Don't blame drug dealers, they are simply fullfilling a market
demand,

I hope you can see how ridiculous your argument is.

I agree with others here that Kevin Rudd is trying as he often does to have it both ways on this.

It might play well electorally to describe people smugglers as the scum of the earth, but as with most of these populist phrases it's an overly simplistic reading of events. Many of those involved are doing no more than providing a service and attempting to make a living. A lot of them are Indonesian fishermen who've had their livelihoods taken from them as Australia has ramped up the patrolling of 'its' waters and cracked down on 'illegal' fishing.

"Fishing boats have been setting out south from West Timor and nearby islands for centuries. It's never been a lucrative trade, but Australian Customs are now closing off this traditional source of food and income for Indonesian fishermen. Australian authorities have also sought prison terms for those caught fishing illegally, and confiscated boats. The result is that Indonesian fishermen are more inclined than ever to take the large sums on offer by people-smuggling syndicates.

'There's a tendency for the fishermen now to hope for someone to rent their boat to smuggle people, because if they get caught fishing across the border, they are facing the same consequences anyway,' said Rudenim, an official at the immigration detention facility in West Timor. The chances of completing the journey and returning home without being detected are slim, but Rudenim said poor fishermen believe it's a risk worth taking.

'Before leaving, the fishermen tell their family it might be four to six months, depending on when they get deported,' Rudenim said. "But with the money they make and leave behind, it's enough to cover their families' cost of living, and even some left, until they are back."

Millions of Indonesians work overseas, often staying away for years before being reunited with their families. A stretch in an Australian prison for a couple of years is not viewed as particularly harsh compared with dangerous jobs on construction sites in, say, the Middle East."

http://www.theage.com.au/national/fishermen-offer-boats-to-smugglers-20090416-a8zf.html

Kevin Rudd needs to differentiate between bigtime syndicates and smalltime fishermen.

INTERESTING post [all].. as a dutchie i thought a search was in order[re the dutch wind tax]
found plenty of intersting stuff under the search
http://books.google.com/books?id=cc0tUyvoYfkC&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=dutch+kings+wind+tax&source=bl&ots=ykQ-DGwZhK&sig=JNswy62vI31GFIDyAVpLT6s6h_4&hl=en&ei=yRnpSf36BpKIkQXZuKymCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=10

as well as the dutch east india company[the first colenisation corp]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company

that became the basis of other corperations scooping up natives resources, who used bonds and civil acts to rule the roost over the various occupied terror-tories of the world[controled by the london law society and the multinational; bankers who monetised their bonds]..

much like the current defacto govts are run under british acts called constititions..[lol]..set up to control govt acts yet some how used to create contracted civil juristictions,..via the matitime rules of war and invasion,where we are acorded a berthing [birth] certificate as landed[emerged from the watters]..civilians/serfs and bonded shattles of the corperate state to be sucked dry via uinconstitutional taxes fees duties and statuted controles and civil implied and contracted obligations ,msubserviant to the state..lol

using our all caps names we have become subjected to contract law[civil]law,..not criminal law that requires a victim[to gain superior standing in court,

civil juristiction ;allowing govts to percicute as criminal statuted law, via obtaining our written oath[please sign here..lol]that makes us subject to their acts[subject to traffic laws , statutes ,etc,

via application..[apply means beg] ..simply via applying for a driving licence[or marage certification [or birth[berth] vehicle;registration

[by regestering we lose our freeman standing thus falling under contractual obligation,via contracted civil authority[not democrative rule]because we signed a contractual bond[read aplication to fall subject to their unconstiututional acts

but hey such is a system we allowed the lawyer/banker elites to develop,over us all..[as well as all we think we own..lol

such is as the means by which the elites lording it over us ignorants,who beg for them to rule over us,rule over[and over rule]it over us all...lol

anyhow its too deep to explain it in 350 words,and still havnt confirmed the dutch kings wind tax ,...lol

I agree with mikk.

If people smugglers are only "business people,"
as Yabby states, catering to the "market."
Then so are drug dealers, pimps, slave-traders,
war-lords, and others. And according to the
argument of his thread - none should be condemned,
except for our Prime Minister, who said,

"They trade on the tragedy of others and that's
why they should rot in jail, and in my view, rot
in hell..."

I don't think you've thought this one through Yabs.

Ah Mikk, perhaps you have not thought about this one too well,
or you would realise that it is your comparison which is silly.

We can agree that taking drugs is not healthy. Are you
comparing the taking of drugs with seeking asylum?

Clearly not, for the Govt has agreed that genuine
asylum seekers should be welcomed, not treated like drug
addicts and locked up in jail.

If genuine asylum seekers are welcome, then explain to
me why helping them is a bad thing

Our so-called border protection (navy, customs etc.) is working hand in hand with people smugglers. When the boats break down – or even when they are sighted chugging along in our waters – our ‘protectors’ simply help them to get to Christmas Island, where they will be kept for a while then, almost automatically, granted visas to live in Australia.

Instead of giving illegals a helping hand, our authorities should be turning them back.

Let’s not forget that 10 Australian soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan while these free-loaders from that country roll up expecting to live here. Let’s not forget, either, that there are Afghans of military age already living here who should be back in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban instead of letting Australian soldiers do it for them

Dear Yabby,

You asked how "helping" asylum seekers is a bad thing?

Setting fire to their boat when they become a
liability wouldn't count as a "good" thing
would it?

To people spinning "illegal immigrants"

These people are refugees or asylum seekers. To be an illegal you have to actually be living in Australia.

Entertaining.

A few hundred asylum seekers arrive by boat each year and it's "Jaysus, dey'll kill us all!". Meanwhile up to five thousand - thousand - foreigners fly in safely each year with a visa and passport, then claim asylum, and it's not even a blip on the racist radar. Those numbers were unchanged even during Howard's government.

I can't help but feel smug when the media so easily leads conservative Australia like a credulous child, taking it by the hand and telling it what to be outraged by and when. We'll add this to the long list of lopsided, uninformed conservative paranoia-fests, which in recent history include:

Thousands of Bosnian, Serbian and Israeli Australians go overseas to serve in foreign militaries and engage in bloody conflicts. The Right's reaction: indifference.
A single Australian hooks up with the Taliban and gets caught hiding under a tank, without firing a shot. The Right's reaction: a media-led frenzy of nationalism and sanctimonious condemnation.

A group of fanatical Saudis, trained and funded with Saudi money, and led by a Saudi, Osama Bin Laden, fly planes into the World Trade Center. The Right's reaction: invade Afghanistan.
It comes to light that Al Qaeda is based in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and plans to continue terrorist attacks. The Right's reaction: increase trade with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and invade a country which actively opposes Al Qaeda.

North Korea builds a nuclear arsenal and conducts multiple test firings. Meanwhile, Pakistan has an established nuclear capacity and edges ever closer to a theocratic government. The Right's reaction: be nice to them.
Iran builds a nuclear reactor for electricity production. The Right's reaction: media-induced frenzy of agression, because the Apocalypse is surely just around the corner.

Given the Right's unblemished history of swallowing whatever hysterical propaganda it's fed, you'll have to forgive the rest of us if our reaction to this latest non-event is a polite chuckle.

Dear Sancho,

Bravo!

Well Said!

*Setting fire to their boat when they become a
liability wouldn't count as a "good" thing
would it?*

Foxy, there is no evidence as yet, if it was an evil people
smuggler or a poor asylum seeker, who set fire to a boat.

My point is that either clever Kev is confused or is just
playing politics on this one.

Medicine makes money on the back of poor suffering people.

So my point is this. If clever Kev welcomes asylum seekers
to Australia, then rather then condem people smugglers and
tell them to rot in hell, he should welcome those who
do is safely and with safe boats, so as not to endanger the
lives of those poor people. Like doctors, they are helping
those who are suffering, for money.

Sancho

Ditto to Foxy

"To be illegal you have to be actually living in Australia".

Some of the garbage expounded here must come from fortune cookies. Any person who is in Australia has to outstay his or her visa before illegality occurs. All of the ‘thousands’ (according to the same fortune cookie eaters) of people who fly into Australia must have a visa and a passport when they arrive or they would be sent out on the next plane home.

At least these people come here legally, and it is up to the government and immigration department to deal with them if they overstay. Action is taken, and we rarely hear about visa over-stayers in detention before they are sent back from whence they came.

Unlike visa over-stayers, the real illegals try to sneak in without any documentation at all. Perhaps the idiots who come up with stupid theories should try getting into a foreign country on a boat without proper documentation, and see how they get on. Malaysia would be worth a try!

As for the nitwits who think that rocking up in a boat makes you a ‘refugee’, and those who are continually lecturing others who call them illegals, take it up with the media and the people who break the news that more ILLEGALS have arrived. Even the PC, Left-wing whackos at the ABC refer to them as illegals. Illegals, boat people, criminals, sneaks – it’s all the same.

It is ILLEGAL to enter any country at any place other than a designated port with the appropriate documentation. The bleeding hearts have lost all contact with reality if they don’t know this.

All people entering Australian waters should be turned back, and only those who have been processed by the UN should be resettled in Australia or in any other country. We don’t want people who have already broken the law before they get here.

Mikk, you cannot compare drug traffickers to people smugglers. It is like comparing going through a red light with mass murder.

People smugglers are nothing compared to people traffickers.

It might surprise you to know that the Australian government engages in drug dealing on a state and federal level.

It might also surprise you to know that the Australian government also engages in people trafficking (not smuggling), eg, a highly trained person from the government on 100k a year, is leased to a foreign government, who pays our government 1million per year for that person.

Sancho,
I suspect less is heard about illegal arrivals at airports, not because opponents of illegal immigration are less concerned, but rather because refugee advocates are less able to exploit such happenings: there’s simply less publicity mileage in it.

Look at it this way, pictures of persons, however jet lagged, disembarking a 747 after having partook of complimentary alcohol , meals & movies , just hasn’t got the bleeding heart appeal, no matter how hard you spin it, as pictures of individuals disembarking a small, leaky boat .

It’s all about manipulation of emotions – heart ruling the head.

Same old dog whistle, same old bulldust. I think Sancho nailed it.

For anybody interested in the reality rather than the hype:

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090417-A-Crikey-index-Refugees-the-real-story.html

Yabby, I'm surprised at you - I thought you only whistled at kelpies :)

Kevvie Kevvie Kevvie, what aaare you doing??

The difference between your rhetoric and your policy is staggering. You’ve condemned people smugglers to rot in jail or hell… or both. But mate…you’ve set up the environment for them….an environment that was very effectively eliminated by little Johnnie!!

Johnnie never mouthed off with the sort of language that you’ve been letting fly lately. I never thought I’d feel this way – but I’m certainly beginning to think that John-Winston was a tad more level-headed than you, old mate!

I mean, what sort of a completely dopey policy was it to water down the tight and highly effective deterrent to onshore asylum-seekers and concomitant people smugglers, at a time when by the admission of yourself, your assistant treasurer Chris Bowen and others in your government, that the situation is worsening in Afghanistan and other places, potentially leading to an escalation in asylum seeking?

The maintenance of a strong policy was, and is, OBVIOUSLY of great importance!

Why on earth would you want to change mandatory detention to short-term detention and then placement in the community, when there was hardly anyone left in detention and probably none on the way? Surely you should have left the mandatory detention policy right alone. What difference would it have made if there is no one to apply it to?

Of course now that you’ve weakened it, there will be a large number of people that it applies to.

Oh dear Kevin. Your action on this saga to date is just so woeful that all I can really do is shake my head in dismay.

Very true Yabby.What is Kevvy going to do when 20 boats at a time turn up on our shores?Sink them?

We have the most diverse culture due to imigration on the planet.There comes a time when our culture will be over whelmed by immigrants and serious tensions will lead to internal strife.When there is no time for evolution,revolution happens.

The best intentions of the bleeding heart left are not often reflected in the reality.

If I were PM,I'd get some nuclear weapons pronto and tell the yanks to go fight their own wars.They have created this rod for their own backs via their flawed foreign policy since WW2.

Show some gratitude! Now you can exercise all your pent up frustrations again! Feel the fresh superior air of the moral high ground;kick the hits out of these disgusting vermin/terrorists;say 'I told you so' about our PM who has to be seen to be a 'Labor' PM, but will at least TRY to show some toughness with them there fightin' words.

(Pity the poor sod, he has to hop both sides of the fence,-while that little cutie-pie Howard could be a nasty conservative pasty. He did it so well too.. The Right don't hide their nationalistic/'race sensitive' views;-BUT when one has to purport to be Labor (and Right),-one is in a bit of a bind....isn't one?) Ach!The puir wee scamp is doing his best.

Enjoy!! This is your time. You can focus on a clear target. Me? I am battening down the hatches, and shall be checking under the bed from now on.

I bought two fuchsia's today.I will be out first thing to put a padlock on them.

I see a problem here.

Some people stll refuse to comply with the tried-and-true method of blaming the victim.

Viva Sancho!

Wot Kevin sez. "world's most evil trade.......rot in gaol.....absolute scum of the earth.....lowest form of life.....vilest form of human life.......rot in hell"

What an hysterical over reaction. A bizarre statement in the context of a handful of boats in 4 months.

This man is an embarrassment when he goes on like this. Can somebody ensure he gets his kiddie-speed everyday?

A brief list of more evil trades; certain drugs, blackmarket uranium, child slavery etc.

Yabby, else would you expect from the airy fairy philosophy of a socialist (spits appropriately)?

We have seen the populous profligacy… the double back flip on fiscal policy, Kevin is a solicalst on the run and by the way he seems to be delivering most policy from internet censorship to erosion of our national security……

he is a prime minister with the runs.

Now lets see if this message again gets a diverted to a higher authority before it goes into the forum?

Ah good Prince! Long time no see, Col. Bronwyn, too, will be both pleased and relieved that your presence again graces these threads. See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2687#60149

For a while there I had thought you had been decapitalized, that most fearsome punishment that is sometimes dished out to the ascerbic, with the arrival within the OLO firmament of one "rouge" (see: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2697#60384 ), but upon reflection the literary style didn't seem to match.

Just between you and me, Bronwyn may have trodden on a banana skin earlier in this very thread. She starts out commendably well in stating:

"It might play well electorally to describe people smugglers as the scum of the earth, but as with most of these populist phrases it's an overly simplistic reading of events.".

Unfortunately, Bronwyn immediately goes on to overly simplify with respect to Indonesian fishermen in saying:

"Many of those involved [in people smuggling] are doing no more than providing a service and attempting to make a living. A lot of them are Indonesian fishermen who've had their livelihoods taken from them as Australia has ramped up the patrolling of 'its' waters and cracked down on 'illegal' fishing.".

The oversimplification is that in recent times, in response to the stimulus of the demands of the Japanese market for seafoods, overfishing by these very fishermen has been threatening the survival of fish stocks and biodiversity generally in the waters that international convention recognises as Australian. Australia is simply attempting to manage the resource to ensure its survival. It isn't the traditional fishing that has gone on for centuries that provoked the tightening of control over access, but the escalated rapacity of the plundering of this resource by proxy, as it were, for the greater east Asia seafood market.

Australia's recent actions with respect to both illegal fishing and secondary movement asylum seeking are really both outworkings of a very responsible population policy, focussing upon forcing the costs of over-population to be borne at source.

It's "solicalsm" by stealth! Welcome back, Col.

Did you really mean to say "populous profligacy"? If so, it was rather clever.

Forrest

"Australia's recent actions with respect to both illegal fishing and secondary movement asylum seeking are really both outworkings of a very responsible population policy, focussing upon forcing the costs of over-population to be borne at source."

Forrest, for someone who is usually so discerning and so attuned to picking up all sorts of subtleties, your words here are as cold and hard edged as the swords you love to write about.

I honestly can't fathom you out at times. You (and dear Ludwig too) need to stop thinking of asylum seekers as mere statistics and start thinking of them as living, breathing, hurting human beings with the same needs and aspirations as you and me. Have you never read some of the truly horrific and gut wrenching individual stories? Where are your usually well-developed powers of empathy?

I know over-fishing is a problem. I don't need a lecture on that score. :) My point was that, rightly or wrongly, it is Australian government policy that is directly driving many Indonesian fishermen to use the same boats that once earned them their living fishing to now ferry asylum seekers. And as such, it is incredibly ignorant to label all people smugglers as 'scum of the earth' as Kevin Rudd has done. His tirade should have been directed towards the manipulative and ruthless people smuggling brokers and syndicates, not the small fry in their small boats. He needed to differentiate between the two very different groups.

Apart from that, his measured words and those from Chris Evans and Bob Debus, and as well the swift and compassionate rescue and medical response to this tragedy, are all very welcome. They're showing true leadership here and their actions stand in stark contrast to the responses we've seen to tragic accidents involving asylum seekers in the past.

I know Yabby is dog whistling on this, but he is perfectly correct to point out the hypocrisy and contradiction in Rudd's stance.

Ginx

A BIG WELCOME BACK!! Please hang around and don't keep disappearing on us! :)

Dear Yabby,

I wasn't able to respond to you earlier because
I'd used up all of my posts.

I fully get the points you're making.

I just don't happen to agree with them.
Because:-

1) You ask us not to "blame people smugglers - they're only
business people. Actually I agree with the PM. "They're
the vilest form of life - because they trade in the
tragedy of others."

2) You made the statement that the PM "welcomes
asylum seekers and is either confused or being
political." Wrong again. The Rudd Government has
scrapped "The Pacific Solution," 'the widely
criticised policy of his predessor (Howard) under
which asylum seekers and their children were detained
for years (and years, and years) in special centres...'

The facts today are:-

3)Currently - asylum seekers are held on Christmas
Island - but their claims are expeditated within
6 MONTHS - which is now Government Policy. The current
Government has dedicated more resources to combat
people smuggling, than any other Government in Australian
history.

4) Its you and the Opposition that is politicising this
fatal boat incident. Both of you are blaming this
latest flood of asylum seekers (and people smuggling)
on the Government.

5) It of course wouldn't occur to either of you that the
ongoing events in Afghanistan and Sri-Lanka, along with
the global economic downturn has anything to do with
what's happening. Nah, of course not. It's easier
to blame the current Government.

That's so yesterday!

An article in The Age of April 19th claims that the group of illegals who blew their boat and themselves up had been driven out of Australian waters on a previous occasion. They had been living on Lombok since they were turned around in 2001.

The article also states that Indonesia has had an influx of Middle Easterners arriving since last September, “with numbers building as each month passes”. Some of them have even set up businesses on the island.

No immediate danger for them! Or the current lot from 2001. People smugglers appear not to have been involved, either.

Yet, the Rudd Labor Government still claims that their stupidly soft and irresponsible attitude to border protection has nothing to do with the influx!

I did not "compare" drug dealers to people traffickers.
I pointed out that Yabbi's original post about people smugglers "just being business men" and "fulfilling a demand" could also be applied as a justification for other criminal acts and is therefore illogical and nonsensical. Do we really dismiss criminal activity as "just honest businesspeople fulfilling a demand"?

Personally I think people smugglers AND drug dealers are the scum of the earth. I dont think the "illegals", as some of you erroneously continue to call them, are scum and they should be humanely and quickly assessed as to whether they are genuine refugees and either deported or accepted as citizens without all the politicisation and rednecked fear mongering.

There is nothing 'erroneous' about describing as 'illegals' people who try to enter a country illegally, mikk; particularly those illegals who have landed in, then left, a 'country of first asylum' to AGAIN seek asylum. More particularly, those illegals who have spent 8 years (see previous post)in a country of first asylum, then try for Australia.

You are entitled to think what ever you wish about the problem of illegal entry, but get your facts straight and don't try to dress illegal entry up as something that suits you and makes illegal it something that it is not.

Even Rudd 'vowed' to turn back illegals last November; he just hasn't got around to it yet, thanks to his incompetence and naivety concerning border protection and his much weakened stance on anyonce trying to access Australia illegally.

Sheesh, logic and reason seem to be in short supply on OLO at times.

Now either asylum seekers are welcome or not welcome in Australia.
If they are welcome, because they have been suffering, then clearly
those helping them to end their suffering, like doctors, cannot
be deemed evil. Now we might have bad doctors and good doctors.
We might also have caring people smugglers and non caring ones.

I don't buy this legal/illegal stuff. Slavery was legal once,
so was Hitler, that does not make them right.

Now either you can think logically or you can't. Either you
can reason, or you can float on emotional clouds. Sorry, then
you won't get it and nobody can help you :)

For what it is worth, I don't play left/right politics. My politics
are issue based, not party based. The left call me right wing and
the right call me left wing, because I am perhaps somewhere in the
middle, each issue has to be addressed on its merits, not on what
the party says.

*They're
the vilest form of life - because they trade in the
tragedy of others."*

Foxy, doctors live off the suffering of others. They are business
people who get paid for services rendered.

I have long ago stated that I think that the present asylum seeker
policy of first on a boat to sail here, is an extremely poor way
of judging who should settle in Australia. Increase yearly numbers
if you wish, but find another way of allocating refugee numbers.
If people are jumping 5-6 countries to get here, clearly they
are economic refugees who are picking and choosing where they would
like to live. They can afford to do that, most in refugee camps
can't.

If on the other hand you think that there is nothing wrong with the
present system, don't knock the people smugglers, for they are
simply responding to a demand created by Australian policy.

Horus, Leigh, Col Rouge and the other refugee bashers have never expressed an opinion about the 90% of asylum seekers who arrive by plane, but watch them froth up over boat people!

And the best justification they can muster for this bizarre, one-sided fixation is that it's completely different if asylum-seekers arrive with passports, or that it's actually the progressive media making a big deal of sea arrivals, as though the imaginary Left that wants an open door migration policy would shoot itself in the foot by shouting about every tiny boat that pulls up.

I have an alternative theory: Right-wing OLO commentators know next to nothing about how immigration works in this country, and simply jump on every White Australia bandwagon rolled out by the media. Now they're trying to save face and play down the fact that, while they howl over the arrival of a single leaky boat, none of them was even aware of the thousands of illegal, queue-jumping economic migrants pouring into Australia each year.

This is what happens when people simply repeat what they read in The Australian's editorials, rather than educating themselves about an issue.

I particularly enjoy Leigh's argument that "these people come here legally, and it is up to the government and immigration department to deal with them if they overstay. Action is taken, and we rarely hear about visa over-stayers in detention before they are sent back from whence they came.".

Really? Where's your evidence for that claim? How do you know what action is taken, and that they don't just disappear into migrant communities? How many are caught, of the thousands you didn't know about while you were snarling at boat people?

Are you sure, Leigh, that you didn't mean to say "Andrew Bolt hasn't said I should be outraged about this, so I assume it's not a problem."

I look forward to reading the hastily cut-and-pasted links to far-Right nationalist websites that you will now post to cover up your profound ignorance of the issue.

ninaf: "all individuals should take full responsibility"

Sounds like our positions aren't that far apart.

I don't know to what extent "rapes" are due to miss-communications. Before reading Fractelle's comments I thought it likely it was a small proportion, but Fractelle experiance gave me pause. To the extent miss-communication is the problem, you can attack it by instructing both genders to correct the miss-understandings and behaviours that caused it. Tell the girls to not assume the boy can read their mood or feelings. If they don't make it obvious via a "no" or a shove, a disaster can result. Equally tell the boys not to assume the girls will be explicit about what they want. If they are unsure ask, or again disaster may result. In other words move both parties towards the middle, and hopefully they will meet.

The reason I am posting here isn't because I want my definition of rape to prevail. It is because I think in try force our imperfect justice system to bring about a better result, you re-define the how path to sex works in order to make prosecution easier. Its perfectly understandable give what happened to you. Obviously it doesn't work - society at large doesn't accept your version, but to the extent you manage to get anyone to believe it, you are doing harm.

You are trying to fix a miss-communication that originates in how men and women think the other behaves. You don't fix the problem by teaching another model of behaviour that is just plain wrong. That just introduces yet more confusion. So saying the expected behaviour is the boy always asks and won't proceed unless the girl says yes isn't helping things. Boys will simply ignore it - because most males don't work like that, and probably never will do so no matter how much Pynchme rails or lobbies to get laws passed to say we must. If the girls assume we will behave like that, you are creating an environment where more there will be more miss-understandings, not less.

Sancho.
Here is some information related to the issue, which you no doubt will say is 'right wing'

http://72.14.235.132/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Awww.immi.gov.au%2Fmedia%2Ffact-sheets%2F73smuggling.htm&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq=

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/compliance/managing-the-border/

Note you can go from here into all sorts of other information.

Please note also that the 'illegals' arriving by air is about 1500 per year and about 98% are sent packing within 72 hours of arrival.

I think the figure was 47800 for over stayers, but this figure remains fairly static, within a few hundred for each year, as most leave of their own volition within a very short time.

One thing I did note from the latest mishap, is that the illegals were all males. Am told the reason for this is that now, with the current provisions, after acouple of months at Christmas Island, they are given permanent residency here and they are then entitled to bring there families here, under the families reunion provissions. So the families can then come here by 747. Who says the boat people are unaware of the new rules.

Sancho & others,
I hate to spoil a nice fantasy narrative ,but –at least in the case of the recent arrivals via Indonesia – the reality is that both the people smugglers and, the people they smuggle are profiteers : both are seeking an economic return .

If past experience is anything to go by, our most recent boat people are likely to have flown to Indonesia by commercial jetliner, to have stayed in Indonesia for a lengthy period of time in paid accommodation and, to have undertaken only the last leg of the journey via ‘leaky boat’.

They are likely to have ‘lost’ all inconvenient identifying paperwork and, will exhaust every taxpayer funded avenue of representation and, over 90% of them (boat borne illegals) are likely to be granted ‘refugee’ status & a good measure of tax payer funded support.

And within as very short period of time after securing their status in Aust, many of these same running-for-their-lives ‘refugees’ will return to their old countries to visit friends and relatives or, trade with or, even work for the very regimes they professed to be so afraid of.—political/religious/ethnic refugees – Nah! more like social climbers

Foxy,

Your own words explain:

"Currently - asylum seekers are held on Christmas
Island - but their claims are expeditated within
6 MONTHS - which is now Government Policy."

That is as good as a green light to all and sundry from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, etc, to take the risk of the SHORT TRIP on the high seas in leaky boats from INDONESIA to Australian waters. Six months on Christmas Island (at Australian taxpayers expense) is but part of the price for permanent residency in Australia. A price gladly paid. Its not the relative safety enjoyed on the journey to the embarkation point, its the DESTINATION, that matters for the SECONDARY MOVEMENT 'asylum' seeker.

Ludwig's post really says it all:

"Why on earth would you want to change mandatory detention to short-term detention and then placement in the community, when there was hardly anyone left in detention and probably none on the way? Surely you should have left the mandatory detention policy right alone. What difference would it have made if there is no one to apply it to?

Of course now that you’ve weakened it, there will be a large number of people that it applies to.

Oh dear Kevin. Your action on this saga to date is just so woeful that all I can really do is shake my head in dismay."

Utterly irresponsible madness.

Whatever else other nations, or the UN, choose to do, or fail to do, with respect to secondary movement asylum seeking, Australia needs to adopt a policy whereby all persons intercepted, whether 'asylum seeker' or enablers thereof, will know for sure that wherever they may end up as a consequence of taking the people smuggling route, it will NEVER be Australia.

Perhaps a bilateral agreement could be negotiated with Kenya, whereby Australia assists Kenya defray the costs of running the Kakuma refugee camp, and Kakuma becomes the automatic destination for all persons intercepted entering Australian waters illegally, Indonesian fishermen included, after biometrication for the record.

'Asylum seeker' policy could become the real issue at any double dissolution that might be being sought.

The following website may be of interest:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/facts-behind-a-rising-asylum-seeker-tide-20090417-aa9w.html

Facts behind a rising asylum seeker tide.
The Age, April 18, 2009.
Brendan Nicholson and Michelle Grattan.

Of the small minority of those who seek asylum in Australia who come here in leaky boats, one has to wonder why they don't just fly here. Given that most of them are eventually found to be legitimate refugees who are entitled to Australia's protection under longstanding treaty obligations, why on earth would they undertake such a dangerous and uncomfortable journey?

I guess they must be desperate, displaced people who've been forced from their homes and are willing to take extraordinary risks in order to rebuild their lives.

We're talking about a few hundred 'boat people' here. No need to get hysterical - we can easily accommodate the majority of them who are genuine refugees who have perfectly legally claimed asylum in Australia. The problem with our Immigration policy is not our acceptance of a relatively small number of legitimate refugees - rather, it's mostly the idiotic open slather for so-called 'skilled' workers who until recently have been positively recruited to come here.

What's the big deal about a few hundred 'boat people'? Anybody'd think there's some underlying xenophobic agenda here.

Dear CJ,

You're the reason women love Aussie men!

Sancho, you claimed "while they howl over the arrival of a single leaky boat, none of them was even aware of the thousands of illegal, queue-jumping economic migrants pouring into Australia each year".

OK Sancho, where are the thousands pouring in each year. RUBBISH

Th links I posted, from the Dept of Immigration, clearly show you either have not got a clue or are deliberately lieing. My guess is that you are lieing. It is there in black and white. About 1500 illegals arrive by air each year and about 98% of these are sent away by the same airline that brought them here, within 72 hours. That leaves about 30 that go into detention.

You also try to confuse the issue by introducing overstayers. At the time that paper was written, there were 47800 overstayers and that figure remains fairly static at any given time, give or take a few hundred. This is because most are simply travelers who have stayed longer than their visa permitted. They leave and are replaced by other traveling overstayers. It is all there in the departmental documents I gave the links to. If the recession means less travelers, then I suspect that figure will drop. I think they state we currently receive about 10 million travelers per year.

This info simply discredits you Sancho, you are all bull.

Ahh, bugger, I posted to the wrong thread above. Anyway, while I am here...

Yabby, your point looks weak to me. I wonder if your main problem is Kevin's statement is obviously designed to resonate politicaly, not make any contribution to the immigration debate. Maybe you think politicians are supposed provide some leadership in debates like this, and are disappointed all Kevin has given us is cheap populism.

By my guess is making that point wasn't the real goal of your post. I think you always planned a segway into favourite topics of yours - immigration and population. There I broadly agree with you, but it was sneaky.

Sancho, I broadly agree with you too, but Afghanistan was invaded because they were harbouring the man who lead the 9/11 attack. The outcomes are as bizarre as you portray them, but sometimes it means the way we got there was convoluted, not via some obviously dumb decision.

Forrest Gumpp: "Australia's recent actions with respect to ... secondary movement asylum seeking are outworkings of a very responsible population policy"

Yikes! Forrest, where did that come from? You have it completely backwards. Our population growth rate is 1.2%, 12.55 births/1000 and 6.23 migrants/1,000 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/as.html. Maybe we disagree what a responsible population policy is, but nonetheless I fail to see when the population policy is evidently "grow, grow, grow" how strident efforts to restrict asylum seekers can be an outworking of it.

That said, I have trouble with outpouring of sympathy I see here for people that force their way across their way out borders yet I rarely hear a whimper for the African waits in a hovel while his application to our consul is processed. I hope both applications are handled in the exactly the same way, ie the African who applies from a refugee camp has exactly the same chance of success as a person who arrives on a plane or in a boat.

I get so sick of this "dangerous small leaky boat" bit coming from the bleeding heart brigade, when ever illegal boat prople are mentioned.

I know dozens, & there are many thousands of Aussies, who have spent their entire wealth on boats, just as leaky, of less than 10% of the capacity of the smuggling boats, to go sail around the pacific islands, & the world. The smuggler's boats are ocean liners compared to the average Aussie cruising yacht. The short sail from Indonesia to Oz is like a sunday sail on sydney harbour in one of them.

Yes I have done it, & yes she did leak, particularly when it got rough, but I managed 53.000 nautical miles around the Pacific, in 6 years, earning a living as I went, with out ever calling for help.

Why do we do it? Because it's fun, oh, & to get away from those bleeding hearts.

Sancho talks about 90% of illegals landing by plane.Yes but on a plane you must have a passport and a visa.Boat people land without any ID and just claim they have been persecuted.Why pay up the $10,000.00 on a leaky boat when a one way flight will cost less than $1000.00?

The world is over populated and with shortages of food,energy and resources things will only get worse.Do we want our pop to double in a few yrs and suffer all the political and social problems that these people have tried to flee? In Western Sydney we already have no go areas and police too afraid of the criminals to enforce the law.

*What's the big deal about a few hundred 'boat people'? *

CJ, at some point you have to turn your philosophy into law.
So what are you suggesting? That the first few hundred who
paddle here fastest are
accepted and that the rest are sent home?

The only way that Kevi and Co are keeping it at that number,
is to pay the Indonesians, to fight them off with sticks.

Fact is that the original UN 1951 convention was designed to
help people get over the border and live to tell the tale.
Now its being used for country and lifestyle shopping, quite
a different situation.

*Maybe you think politicians are supposed provide some leadership in debates like this *

Well that would indeed be nice, rstuart. Having a PM who is
rational would be handy too. I think the stress of the job is
starting to show. First he brings a hostie to tears, now its
a pure rave about asylum transporters. Kevi needs a course in
anger management :)

there is a lot of truthing going on[you may or may not have noticed]normally i would be writing this to ol kevi,..but what the..well he dont reply,..so i will note it here for you kev]

see that obama released the torture memoes,and the former brit treasuror[now pm] is even going to have..[finally]..a 911 inquiry[ok after he gets re-elected[or maybe if]but kevi its a case of watch the left hand

kev why dont we release the children over board papers[seems the libs been trying to set the adgenda to much ol boy...[one needs to wonder why,

so we watch the left hand?..not talk about the carbon tax?..sort of dont talk about the war?..by setting the destractive adgenda to stop us thinking about the new tax?

yeah i know its the same old cash raising adenda,to bail out govt excess to bail out its mates [like when howhard and beaty combined to give one billion [half a bil each]to a mutual mate for that magnesia plant up in gladstone]

anyhow the libs are finally telling some truths[lol]so kev its maybe time we heard some of the real truths,revealed about the stuff we copuldnt talk about yesterday,just to distract the media from the current issues so to speak,

then you can slip in the new tax[while everyone gets distracted with the other minour destractions the media is allowed to destract us with[so we talk about petty stuff]not the big issues thye media remains silent about [then as now eh]..

ps on the hazing thing with that sewardess, isnt that normal to toughen up the armed forces?

[we gotta stop taking woman into the armed forces

[you have noticed the libs seem to have strong suport from some trolls in the forces kevi,[lotta mil leaks mate]you dont think the military going to do a coup do ya?,they seem to have past loyalties mate

anyhow back to the children over board, destraction

I was just waiting for Sancho to finish the sentence in regards to all of these nasty illegal’s that arrive by Aircraft at our airports-

Just as soon as I come back from the hospital to have this wheat bix removed from my throat- it became lodged after I heard an interview describing these nasty white Illegal Immigrants who come from – England – Ireland- American Backpackers who overstay their Visas and continue working-

Fairdinkum – that just about explains the whole attempt to deflect the discussion from the Sabotage of a Leaky boat to Terrorism and Murdering - injuring its cargo; that is what has taken place- And it is not new – this behaviour is recorded in parliamentary senate committee reports dating back to the mid 90ies.

- That’s the guarantee they get to Australia – The milk has gone off, - and the honey has turned into to bovine excrement.

These nasty White backpackers - well we will just have to send them to Packistan? Afganistan and turne them in to third worlders and Moslems -- then they would be welcome with open arms ( I think) Or does their skin colour disquallafy them?

A couple of days ago, Sancho ranted against my opinions and advised me that people posting 'here' read and thought.

Sancho is certainly not one of them, unless he believes that his collection of "The Phantom" comics is reading. There is no evidence that he has read anything other than rubbish - rubbish that he wants to believe and that which fits in with his ignorant views.

Real readers read all shades of opinion - if only to know what the 'enemy' is thinking. And, sometimes, opinions are changed by reading views which have previously not be ones own.

No chance of that with Sancho. He doesn't need knowledge, and he continually demonstrates that he has none.

Sancho is a bully and thug who thinks 'shouting' will make people who don't share his ignorant views go away quietly.

Dear Leigh,

Quite frankly I'm really surprised by your
strong reaction against Sancho.

But I guess in a public forum such as OLO
things do tend to get a bit emotive when
the right buttons are pushed. Especially
regarding political issues.

It's also understandable - when criticisms
are felt to be negative and personal - then
we react in kind. (Been there, done that).

I remember one poster even "mooned," another
poster in sheer frustration. It was funny,
because they later claimed they were simply -
"turning the other cheek."

We tend to forget - this is only an opinion
forum.

Have a stress-free day.

Foxy,

You are "surprised" by my reaction only because your agree with the bully, Sancho.

"Viva Sancho" on the 18th, and "Bravo!" on the 19th? Bit of schoolgirl enthusiasm there. I hope that, as you grow older, you will learn more than you know now.

Well now Leigh little pigeon, I agree with Foxy. You mustn't go getting yourself so upset. It's bad for your health. Sancho put his point across quite succinctly and eloquently (like wot I do), and you don't agree with what he said. That's OK. But don't allow yourself too much of the green-eyed monster. I for one appreciate how hard you try, and you make your point reasonably well. With time that will improve.

This forum is a wee tad magnetic, but I do hope not to get too involved because once I do that, I get.....er, too involved (thanks Bronwyn). And that is not necessary because there are plenty here with a super abundance of 'little grey cells' to counter the intolerant claptrap coming from the usual quarters.

However;- I can see that those same quarters have now come in from the cold, and have found their niche again. Jolly hockey sticks! Fun for one and all!

It is fascinating to see the confident statement from the 'experts' that these people are 'profiteers' who get onto planes first, and then happily hop onto leaky boats for a rather dangerous journey. By gad! They are seasoned travellers aren't they? Perhaps we came give them frequent flyer points, and leaky boat points. I do feel that such stoicism should not go unrewarded.

The 'West' will always find ways of justifying their incursions into other lands (not doing so crash hot on the Bin Laden thing are they?),-but God forbid that their people should attempt to come here by any means possible. How dare they!! And no matter how many of their people are maimed or killed in their own countries;-who the hell do these upstarts think they are for daring to have negative feelings about the West.

They should know their place. That's what I say.

Dear Leigh,

There was no "Viva Sancho," from me (That was another
poster).

I'll take on board what you said about me.

However, with you being so much older and presumably
wiser, shouldn't you be a better role model for
us "youngsters?"

Perhaps then you'll rate a "Bravo Leigh,"
as well.

I admire the stance taken by Debus and Evans not to be stampeded into premature comment on the cause of the explosion. Trouble for them is that even the ABC is quoting unnamed 'senior govt. sources' on the source of the explosion. Talk about leaky boats!

Rudds hysterical over reaction re people smugglers has fuelled the fire. Especially in light of Age reports that people smugglers were not involved in this incident.

The smartest thing the govt could do now is to release the facts (which could be gotten quickly from the navy). Evans is starting to sound silly with his 'I know nuttink' mantra.

Foxy,

Right. You did not make the "Viva Sancho" comment (if that's what it was). It was made by Wobbles, whose screen persona speaks volumes about him or her. You did make the other silly comment, so I shan't apologize in this instance.

As for the 'role model' crack, it all depends on what you look for in a role model. Given what you think of my opions, it is highly unlikely that you would ever regard me as a role model. You seem to be putting the cart before the horse: role models (if they wish to be such things)traditionally pass on their experience, ideas and beliefs to younger people (if they want them). You seem to have the idea that you find an old fart you agree with and say, "I'll have him or her for a role model".

We old farts do not suddenly change our opinions to be anyone's role model. Perhaps that's something else you need to think about.

Not that it matters, but I have never intentionally tried to be a role model. My two daughters, now approaching middle-age, received my opinions only when they asked for them (except when they were little of course). My wife has always done the "unfemine" things she wanted to, and has clashed with many a pig-headed male over it. But, not once have I criticised her; she has always had my support.

You don't have to model yourself on anyone. You have to learn for yourself, which, I suppose, you are doing in your own way. Just remember, the world is grey, not black and white.

>>Of the small minority of those who seek asylum in Australia who come here in leaky boats, one has to wonder why they don't just fly here. Given that most of them are eventually found to be legitimate refugees who are entitled to Australia's protection under longstanding treaty obligations, why on earth would they undertake such a dangerous and uncomfortable journey?<<

On the more legitimate side of the ledger, I'd guess there'd be plenty of reasons for refugees/asylum seekers to preferentially choose to come here by leaky boat – eg,

• not having the government infrastructure in place in their home country (eg passport office, advisory website, etc);
• taking the path of least resistance (eg knowing a friend of a friend who knows someone who can help get them to Oz etc);
• being in personal strife but knowing that Australia does not favour a particular type of refugee/asylum seeker (or knowing that intermediate countries have their problems as well); and
• not being aware of the laws and customs of Australia.

All pretty straightforward and mundane reasons.

>>What's the big deal about a few hundred 'boat people'?<<

The trouble is that a few hundred here ends up with a few tens of thousands there. Once the refugees are let in easily, the green light goes out to the human sea transport business that they are in play. Once you go down that road, where does it stop?

The contradictory nature of the situation when one gets right into the detail shows why the refugee/asylum seeker aspect of immigration is such a diabolical problem.

There's nothing like a handful of desperate refugees to bring the ugly Australians out from under their rocks, is there?

As an examplar of that ignorant and hateful demographic, few posters here can match the offerings from Leigh. Leigh chastises others for not reading "all shades of opinion", but proceeds to parrot exclusively from the lunar right - persisting in erroneously labelling asylum seekers as the pejorative "illegals".

Leigh should practise what he preaches. On Saturday I posted a link to a comprehensive article at Crikey that provides many of the salient facts about refugees, boat people, asylum seekers and how insignificant they are as a proportion of Australia's total immigrant intake - and indeed how insignificant is Australia's intake of refugees when compared with other developed countries. The article provides links drawn from a wide range of sources, including many that could hardly be described as left-leaning or of the 'bleeding heart' persuasion.

I bet Leigh didn't bother to read it. Here's the link again in case he or anybody else really wants to sort out the facts from the dog whistles: http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090417-A-Crikey-index-Refugees-the-real-story.html

Many thanks to Foxy for the lovely compliment, and may I add my welcome back to the inimitable Ginx, whose presence at OLO has been sorely missed.

And Viva Sancho!

To be fair, CJ, Leigh says he see things in shades of grey, when in fact the world is multicoloured. The spectrum of light even stretches out to beyond the limits of human perception. Those frequencies of light, I guess some might call "black" (as they cannot be seen by humans), even though they are on opposite sides of the visible spectrum.

Funny old world innit?

CJ Morgan: "and indeed how insignificant is Australia's intake of refugees when compared with other developed countries"

Not according to the link you give, CJ. Eg:

- Current quota for refugees coming into Australia: 12,000
- Number of asylum applications registered in 2008 for industrialized countries according to the United Nations: 383,000

So we take around accept 3.1% of all applications, and I presume not all applications are accepted. A quick google says USA+Eurpoe's population is around 1 billion, so ours is 2% of the total, and that total doesn't include any Asian countries like Japan. We are punching well above our weight.

From the same figures - Number of requests for asylum received by Australia, New Zealand and Japan in the past two decades: 107,000. But we accept 12,000 year, or 240,000 over the same two decades. Not exactly a picture of a xenophobic country.

I agree that Howard put in place an obnoxious and hideously expensive process for handing the asylum applications for boat people. But even so the outcomes didn't change much - we accepted the vast majority of them. To me Howard's pacific solution looked to be little more than a $1 billion political stunt. He gets extra points for designing something so inhumane he sent a few immigrants mad. One hell of a cost for what essentially was a political ad.

But taking the 1000 ft view, over the past decade or we so processed 10's of thousands of asylum applications, accepted all who qualified, and sent 1/2 a dozen of them insane. Not wonderful, but not too bad either.

Fair points, rstuart. You're quite right, of course - despite the public rhetoric about 'boat people', Australia has quietly accepted a substantial number of legitimate refugees (including, ultimately, nearly all of the tiny minority of asylum seekers who arrive by boat)under both the Howard and Rudd governments.

I was referring to that minority of the Australian electorate who get hysterical about asylum seekers and who respond all too readily to the fanfare of dog-whistles that the Opposition has been broadcasting, courtesy of a mass-media that's milking the isssue for all it's worth.

Dear Leigh,

Thank you for your explanation.

I actually do not think of you as an "old fart."
In fact, if the truth be known - you've made me
tack stock of many a subject in the past.
That's actually one of the things that I like
about OLO - the variety of opinions.

I also defnitely do not see the world in terms
of just "black and white," for me there's always
been a wide spectrum of colours.

Quite frankly - if the two of us were to sit down
and have a conversation - we'd probably find that
we have quite a lot in common.

And, that's the point that I was trying to make,
but I guess I wasn't doing it very well.

Anyway, keep on posting, please.
As you pointed out - I've got a lot to learn.

Perhaps, though, we could both learn something
if we both opened our minds and hearts?

Ginx

By gosh Ginx what an intriguing post – but, what does it mean?

You’ve jived around like a blue ass fly on a six day old sav,
but gave us nothing of substance -- apart from a lot of fly specks (talk about frequent flyer points!)

Might we coax into an encore, without the “So You Think You Can Dance” routine…i.e. in 21st Century English… so us lesser beings can follow your higher reasoning .

Mind you there were a few points I gleaned , taxing though they were on my ‘little grey cells’(after scraping away the fly specks!)

1) You asked: ‘Who the hell are these upstarts( i.e. the illegal arrivals) …to have negative feelings about the west’
Holy fly swat!
Now you got that one wrong–sooo wrong!
You see, the illegals don’t have ‘negative feelings’ about the west– they love us tooo muuuch. We’d actually prefer them to love us less ---love someone else --- someone like , their earlier ports of call ---or at least share their love around.
The illegals love the west sooo muuuuch that they’ll leave their pooor old mum back, home alone, in the boondocks of Bagdad , while they’re sunning themselves in Lombok or Java, for years , on the off chance they might bum a ride on a passing boat to the west –- now, that’s REAL LOVE!

2) As for the ‘dangerous journey’ line you’ve swallowed (hook & sinker) I refer you to Hasbeens, beenthere donethat post – most enlightening, if not entirely PC .

*courtesy of a mass-media that's milking the isssue for all it's worth.*

Come on CJ, you are clearly smart enough and old enough to be
aware that the media will milk any issue for all that it is worth,
if they get mileage from the public. That is their job after all.

What surprises me is that a so called sensitive poodle such as
yourself, cannot see the injustice that is going on here.

Now lets say that you were in a refugee camp near the Burmese
border, having fled their oppression. You might be female, you
might have kids, you most certainly would not have 2c to rub
together.

So what are your chances of getting out of that misery and being
accepted by Australia? Virtually zilch, for Afghans and Iraqis,
where the Americans spend large amounts of money, dominate the
scene, by being able to buy their way to a ticket to the land
of milk and honey.

The reality is that the young bleeding hearts who influence
Australian politicians opinions, are so focussed on their tv
screens, that you are largely forgotten in this debate.

Now I can understand that perhaps Foxy is still young and silly
enough to fall for this, but I am surprised that you at your age,
can't see the big picture here, more clearly.

Dear Yabby,

You may find this informative:

http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2009/s2546658.htm

The Minister for Immigration and the Government Leader
in the Senate, Senator Chris Evans discusses asylum
seekers with Barrie Cassidy.

At least read what he has to say, please.

Relatively few of any country's population seek asylum. So, what about the rest of the people who go on living in their country? In Afghanistan, surely most people are suffering from the fear and privations caused by the Taliban. But most of them manage the hard lives they have without expecting to be able to do a flit to Austalia or somewhere else.

Why do some of you cheer on the relatively few who manage to skip the country and head here? They are the typical rats deserting the ship.

Why do some of you think it's OK for able-bodied Afghans to come here when our own troops are fighting - and 10 have been killed - in the same country the illegals are fleeing?

Haven't thought about it? Don't know? Don't care? Too stupid to think?

What?

Leigh,

"Why do some of you think it's OK for able-bodied Afghans to come here when our own troops are fighting - and 10 have been killed - in the same country the illegals are fleeing?"

Because the Australians are fighting the Taliban regime, not the Afghan people. The whole idea of fighting over there is to liberate the Afghan people FROM the regime. It's reconcilable for Afghans to flee here (and elsewhere) because the restoration, if that's possible, of the civil rights of people in Atghanistan is a process and, as such, will take time. The fact that fighting still needs to go on there is proof positive that it's still not safe over there for many.

Horrendous my dear, thank you for your response, when I have a little more time I'll try to decipher it.

It seems to me that any one of us choosing to leave our country of origin are doing so because we feel there is a better life to be had in our chosen country. Legal or 'illegal'. So I guess that all migrants could be construed as 'rats deserting a sinking ship'. Certainly many of the migrants from the UK are of the 'sinking ship' opinion. (Perhaps that is due to all those blasted 'furriners'?).

As for the West liberating the Afghans from the vile Taliban (who do a roaring trade selling 'spies' to the Americans)....;remember when Nixon was on Rowan and Martins Laugh-in in 1969(?). He invited people to 'sock it to him'. He went back in 1974 (?-post Watergate), and said: "in 1969 I came on this programme and asked you to sock it to me. Well, you can stop now".

Wanna take bets?? I think Afghanistan has taken all the 'liberation' it can manage. Many deaths of innocent Afghans have also occurred. Or is that just 'collateral damage'?

Besides, aren't we there to get UBL? Or is it a bob each way? Liberate AND capture UBL.

SO; people who have had their country destroyed in the name of liberation and want to get away from that, are 'rats deserting a sinking ship'. (And who is REALLY sinking that ship?).

Stoopid is as stoopid does.

RobP,

Yes. I know Australian soldiers are fighting the Taliban who are a constant threat to the Afghan people. But you haven’t answered the question.

You appear to think that is OK for Australians to be killed fighting something which is not threat to us, but it’s OK for Afghan citizens not to do something for themselves, in their own country, against the Taliban, which is definitely a threat to them. It follows that you think that it’s OK for these ‘asylum seekers’ not to defend themselves and their country, but to take the cowardly way out and use the war as an excuse to come to Australia, while your own countrymen are being killed and are facing death every day.

Thanks for the response, anyway.

Foxy I saw that interview. So what is your point?

Er, Leigh. Australian soldiers are in Afghanistan as part of a US-led invasion force that ousted the legal (if objectionable) Taliban government. While a West-friendly puppet 'democratic' government has been installed, large areas of Afghanistan remain in Taliban control.

It may surprise you to hear that many Australians have never supported our military involvement in Bush's Afghanistan adventure. Some of us even think that if our government wants to go and stick its nose in the internal affairs of a country that's never posed the slightest threat to Australia, then we have a moral obligation to accept as refugees those poor bastards who've been displaced by Western miltary adventurism and have also become endangered by supporters of the former government that we assisted in deposing.

Just like that other disastrous war in Vietnam 40 years ago - which the US (and we) ended up losing. Strangely enough, our society didn't fall apart, despite the fact that Australia accepted around 1000 'boat people' who sought asylum here following our defeat.

I don't suppose you've gotten around to reading those informative links I provided - Haven't thought about it? Don't know? Don't care? Too stupid to think?

Leigh,

I suppose the ordinary Afghans would fight the Taliban if they could. But when you're up against a totalitarian group of fanatics who hold the whip-hand, you have very little to actually fight for, and you start from behind the 8-ball, it's pretty hard to be motivated, let alone do anything much about it, except to flee. It's simple physics really. As the saying goes, you can't fight City Hall.

To take your argument further, what is is that we Australians have done to deserve the standard of living we have today? Sure, our defence forces have fought for this country, but being a Western country, we've had the distinct advantage of starting from a position of strength. We had the opportunity to do something about despots like Hitler and we took it - fair enough. How do you know the Afghans wouldn't do something similar if they had a realistic chance of success?

Also, there are many, many Australians who have benefited from our standard of living who would never pick up a weapon to save themselves. Do you have the same rather jaundiced view of them? For the sake of the argument, why shouldn't they be banned from receiving scholarships overseas, until they've spent some time in the Army Reserve, say. Where does the logic stop? Why is your argument only used one way - ie on those with the least?

RobP,

Well, it’s still up to people to pull their own country into the present time, and fight their own fights. If they can’t get “motivated” as you put it, they have to live with what they have. You might say that’s OK for me to say (not being in that situation) but that’s life.

“To take your argument further, what is is that we Australians have done to deserve the standard of living we have today?”

Our ancestors did a hell of a lot – including those who never saw Australia. People came from the UK, Ireland and Europe where they had sorted out the bones of what the first settlers here stared with. It was a time of enlightenment, and it wasn’t long before we cast off the the few remaining shackles that Europe still had.

Our ancestors fought for everything we now enjoy; it wasn’t luck or a gift. All Western countries did the same. The non-Western ones, so far, haven’t. We cannot do it for them. They have to do it, but it seems that many of them do not want to. It really is not our responsibility to hand out the benefits to people who haven’t lifted a hand to help themselves.

As you say, many of us didn’t do much towards getting what we have. Our ancestor did it for us – not foreigners, like we are in the Middle East.

CJ Morgan,

I’m not aware of your links, but I never look at them. Not because it’s you – I never look at anyone’s links; the net is notoriously inaccurate because all and sundry can put up what they like. Some of it’s OK, much of it is not. Unless you know the person behind the information, it’s hard to tell good from bad. Added to that, I don’t think you would be referring to anything you didn’t agree with:) , and I don’t like to go over my megabyte allowance.

It “may surprise you”, too, that I do not support Australian involvement in Afghanistan. I did go along with Iraq, but only until they got rid of Saddam. I also agree that our involvement in foreign countries encourages asylum seekers to think that it’s OK to come here (they don’t know me, hey?) as happened with the Vietnam war, which, incidentally I was firmly against. I had a younger brother jailed because he refused to register for conscription, in writing, to the government. His twin brother didnt' bother to register, and their number never came up anyway!

Leigh, let me try to understand this. Able bodied men that should be working to support their families should be forced to (or at least shamed into) joining an army to fight against whoever may oppress them, but definitely not allowed to leave the country to seek refuge if hassled by said oppressors? meanwhile leaving their women and children to fend for themselves no doubt.

But if the war is not in your country, then you should never have to join the army. In fact, we and our allies (you know, the ones we have security treaties with) should never send our armies to help those people who would otherwise become refugees in countries that don't want them, because that only encourages them to want to seek refuge in our countries.

Yeah, that's pretty grey.

Dear Yabby,

If you saw that particular interview
and still have to ask me - what's my point?

Then I guess clearly for you there
isn't one.

I thought that by reading the transcript
of that interview - you would better
understand the Government's position
on asylum seekers. Which would make you
think twice before making accusations
that aren't valid.

Silly me.

Ginx

1-- ‘ It seems that any one of us leaving our country of origin are doing so because we feel there a better life to be had in our chosen country’.
There are two parties to such a transaction . Increasingly it’s the case that if you want to move to another country you must have some skill or association they want.If you’re seeking to use the UN refugee convention you must have a well founded fear of being persecuted .For Aust to open its borders, in this day and age, to people merely because the new comers envisaged they might have a –better life– here is both unstainable & just plain … ‘stoopid’

2-- To have “had (ones) country destroyed …and want to get away from it…”
Might be a recognised reason for seeking refugee status – BUT …
1)If you really were running for your life ---the UN convention facilities you stopping at the FIRST haven --- It does not endorse your shopping-around for the best social welfare system , the best clime or the best beaches. To allow ‘refugees’ to shop around is contrary the convention they are seeking relief under and, it we allow them to get away with it is just plain ….’stoopid’
2) And if you were really running for your life, you wouldn’t be seeking to return to that old country soon after securing Aust residency. To do so would show you weren’t a genuine refuge or, you were just plain …‘stoopid’

Yet, quite number of our ‘refugees’ both shop around & return to their old country soon afterwards. Is it them or us who are just plain …stoopid

As for liberating the Afganistan, Rowan & Martin, Waterage, Nixon these issues for other threads & other days .To get side tracked on such peripheral issues would be just plain …’stoopid’

You said it … “stoopid is as stoopid does”

Foxy, for me there certainly is a point, but it goes well beyond
the standard Govt spin, put out by Evans or even the Liberals for
that matter.

It goes right back to the 1951 Convention, in comparison to what
is happening today and how unfair that is for those not cashed up
enough to go country hopping.

Now you can try and get your little mind around that big issue,
or just ignore it and believe the Govt spin.

We now know your choice.

Here's a thought I came across elsewhere: why doesn't the Australian government set up a processing centre in Indonesia to assess the bona fides of asylum seekers who turn up there?

Although Australia's a signatory to the UN Convention while Indonesia isn't, I'm sure the Indonesians would cooperate.

Dear Yabby,

You don't know much about me at all.

Firstly, you call me "young and silly."
Then you tell me to get my "little mind,"
around the 1951 Convention... (don't you
know its not the size but how you use it
that counts?). And finally you accuse me of
falling for "Govt. spin."

In actual fact - I'm reading as much as I
can on this issue. I'm watching a whole
bunch of news reports and TV programmes on the topic.
I'm trying to get as many
different points of view as I can - because
I find this an interesting subject.

You're the one that appears to be inflexible on
this topic. Perhaps you're right - it could be
a "generational thing." One tends to become more
set in one's ways as one gets older.

I understand.

However, you just may be interested in the following
website:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/whos-afraid-of-the-r-word-20090417-aa9q.html

"Who's Afraid Of The 'R' Word?
The Age, April 18, 2009.

"Australians have never warmed to the Refugee Convention.
We were among the first to sign it and we trumpet its virtues,
particularly to countries in our region who have not
signed up. But the fundamental notion that we should assess the
refugee claims of everyone who turns up on our shores ..."

Read the article. It's very interesting and informative.

The first "safe haven" depends on whether the country is in fact a signatory to the 1951 Convention and 1967 protocol.

Non-signatories still have obligations toward refugees under international law but not minimum standards of treatment or legal status. Of the 34 non-signatory countries, many already have suspect human rights records and may not be considered "safe" for any outsider, let alone refugees.

I think it was all the exhaust smoke being blown his way Horus, I did not actually see any relevance to it, until I used some of C J Morgan’s Reasoned Logic;

which is an anathema to the motley crews argument – CJ forgot to complete the sentence – it is their Logical fallacy being argued- In any case, I look forward to the next propaganda campaign that is inevitable - And that the explosion was caused by a Moss ad Agent or a C I A agent - who dived overboard in their Acme blue overalls.
It was a deliberate act to provoke an incident.
Don’t laugh – it is coming.
You may now know why Government is in definition a false premise, along with its incompetent ineptitude – and formulated by the Bureaucrats - an internal dysfunctional Utopian gravy train – or a new age Sheltered workshop.

You are right Leigh – our boys ought to be back here protecting Australia from the enemy that has gone out of control – and it is within

Er, CJ Morgan Re your post of : Tuesday, 21 April 2009 2:37:13 PM

1) I don’t know how you determined that the Taliban were a/the ‘legal’ govt.
The Taliban gained power via the same invasive/violent activates that you seem to find so objectionable when employed by the West – and they had foreign backing , including Arabs , The Pakistani intelligence agency & ‘our’ home grown ‘freedom fighter’ David.

2) Nor do I know how you determined that OZ “ accepted around 1000 'boat people' who sought asylum here following our defeat” . If you think ‘1000’ was the full extent of our post-Vietnam war intake you are seriously mistaken. Must be those dodgy immigration figures some have been citing.

3) And as for : ‘ Afghanistan adventure… Australia, then we have a moral obligation to accept as refugees those poor bastards who've been displaced by Western military adventurism and have also become endangered’
You might like to consider an alterative take on the issue (at least for a minute or two) by O’Connor & William in ‘Overloading Australia’.
‘A dramatic example of this occurred in 2002 [in] Afghanistan , prior to the US launching its war on the Taliban . Millions of refugee began to pour out of the country ….the sudden flood of refuges had had little to with the Taliban , or the war– they were peasants fleeing a famine…the famine was caused by drought , at least partly; but the drought was not unprecedented. What was unprecedented was the vast population that was now trying to feed itself in those cold upland valleys…Afghan women were averaging over 6 children each. As a result the amount of land sown to grain per person had fallen to a miniscule 0.02 of a hectare’

Dear Foxy

I think you will enjoy reading the article link below. It redefines the term 'fathead' as well as casting a new spin on 'its not size that counts it is how you use it."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=does-brain-size-matter&sc=CAT_MB_20090414

Cheers

Foxy, I think we speak a different language here in Western Australia,
for terms that we commonly use every day as part of colourful
language, ruffle your feathers. Sorry, I did not inherit the
PC gene. Many of the young are called young and silly, which
also translates as gullible.

The problem with the UN 1951 Convention is that it is a good 60
years out of date. It needs altering and updating, so that it
cannot be misused as it is now.

But no politician has the testicles to tackle that one, so they
just paper things over, spend lots of money and pretend to be doing
something, then pass it on to the next Government. So the saga
continues, nothing is solved.

If you look at the huge horde of millions of Mexicans heading north
to the US, they are openly economic migrants. They want a better life
and more money. Those Mexicans have one problem, they are not
as tribal as much of the rest of the third world, so they can't
just claim asylum, tell a hard luck story of being persecuted and
gain a passport.

To claim asylum you only have to show that you fear persecution,
because you are Hazara, or Shia, or a Kurd, or any other tribal
minority and if you are a good story teller there is no way that
authorities can prove that you are lying. Bingo, you have your visa.

Marr is correct, most of the public are against the UN convention
as they know what is going on and how much of their taxdollars
are being thrown at this. But what about the genuine refugees
in refugee camps, who don't have two cents to rub together? They
are largely forgotten.

The West is spending a fortune on barricades to stop asylum
seekers arriving. Those resources could be spent on helping
genuine refugees in camps, if the Convention was updated and
all these loopholes closed.

Horus

" If you think ‘1000’ was the full extent of our post-Vietnam war intake you are seriously mistaken."

CJ was correctly quoting the numbers of boat people who arrived as a result of the Vietnam War, not the total refugee intake.

".. the sudden flood of refuges had had little to with the Taliban, or the war – they were peasants fleeing a famine .."

The famine could well have impacted. So what? It wasn't the primary motivating factor, in spite of whatever an author of a less than dispassionately entitled, ‘Overloading Australia’ might say to the contrary.

Would you be hanging around knowing the US was about to launch its revenge-fuelled obliterative fire power in your skies? I think not.

Besides, the Russians had recently occupied the country for ten long years at that stage, and had left behind widescale destruction that the once resilient Afghanis had never recovered from. Climate change factors only further exacerbated the already immense difficulties for them in trying to resume their former way of life. The thought of American bombs raining down on them was no doubt the last straw for many impoverished and understandably fearful Afghanis.

What would you have done? Stood your ground and waved your fist at them?

Many were also fleeing because they'd already stood up to the Taliban and were being persecuted as a result. And by 'persecuted', I'm not meaning some low-level idle threat. Many had already seen friends and family members killed and knew the threat that they were next was indeed very real.

In spite of all that has occurred, most Afghanis love their homeland and don't want to leave it. Fleeing the land they were brought up in and have grown to feel part of is not a decision they make lightly. It's a last-ditch attempt motivated by fear for their lives, not some fascile desire to improve their level of material comfort, meagre as it might be.

Dear Yabby,

Fair enough.

Very well argued.

Dear Fractelle,

Thanks.

I needed that.

Yabby

"The problem with the UN 1951 Convention is that it is a good 60 years out of date."

The need for certain groups of people to leave their homeland and seek asylum is a perennial problem which has always been with us and always will. The unfortunate people who find themselves in this situation need the surety that they can escape persecution in the best way they can manage and have their case for asylum heard fairly and dispassionately. This fact is not something that dates. The Refugee Convention is as relevant today as the day it was signed off on.

Telling asylum seekers they should wait in a squalid overcrowded refugee camp is effectively condemning them to years of suffering in the most intolerable conditions, where many will contract life-scarring illnesses and many others will die slowly and tortuously. Unless you can categorically state that you'd be prepared to do that yourself, Yabby, you have no right to condemn others to that fate.

"If you look at the huge horde of millions of Mexicans heading north to the US, they are openly economic migrants."

The Mexicans have nothing to do with asylum seekers in Australia.

There is at least one common thread however. Just as many Mexicans have to cross borders to feed themselves, after years of having their resource base plundered by their powerful imperialist neighbour, so too many Afghanis and Iraqis have been forced to move as that same imperialist power has inexplicably invaded and destroyed their part of the world.

".. if you are a good story teller there is no way that authorities can prove that you are lying. Bingo, you have your visa."

Just like that, hey Yabby. You have no idea of the hoops asylum seekers have to jump through to prove their legitimacy, and all the while being locked up like criminals and deliberately isolated from the advice and support they so desperately need. It takes more than a good story to fool the hard-nosed bureaucrats whose decisions seal the fate of these poor hapless souls, entirely at their mercy.

*It takes more than a good story to fool the hard-nosed bureaucrats whose decisions seal the fate of these poor hapless souls, entirely at their mercy.*

Bronwyn, unless of course that bureaucrat is a soft touch like
yourself. I would have you in tears in minutes with my sob story :)

Some obvious things are picked up, like Pakistanis sometimes posing
as Afghans. The rest of the time it is on the official to prove that
the claimant is lying, extremely difficult to do, if they are a good
story teller. The claimant only has to fear persecution, not have
been persecuted. Big difference!

*Telling asylum seekers they should wait in a squalid overcrowded refugee camp is effectively condemning them to years of suffering in the most intolerable conditions*

Well no wonder. The West is spending such a fortune to set up
barricades, that there is no money left for those camps. That
is exactly my point. Spend less on barricades, redirect those funds
to be spent on the people who really need it.

*so too many Afghanis and Iraqis have been forced to move as that same imperialist power has inexplicably invaded and destroyed their part of the world.*

Err, I remind you that roughly twenty million Iraqis are living in
Iraq and a similar number of people are living in Afghanistan.
In fact many refugees returned, once the Taliban lost power.

Now somebody like yourself, who only knows a relatively cushy
lifestyle, might find it tough to live there, but people who have
learnt how to cope all their lives, clearly are getting on with life.

The fact remains that Australia cannot take them all Bronwyn. Now
tell me, in your opinion how many refugees a year should Australia
accept?

If Australia decided to only take asylum seekers from countries
which ajoin us, the rest of the refugee quota, whatever is decided,
from refugee camps all over the world, that would be fair and
cost effective. The present system is neither cost effective or
fair.

What Bronwyn said. Plus:

How many boat people have been revealed as terrorists since 2001?

Answer:

ZERO.

The same cannot be said for people who arrive by plane, with visas.

OK, try this.

We put a condition on residency, or citizanship. A 4 year stint in the army.

This would weed out most of the undesirables, & cowards. If they are not prepared to serve this country, there is no reason that this country should have them.

It also overcomes the massive expenditure involved in "settling in" help, as they will have a suitable income.

If we are going to send citizans to Afganistan, to fight for that country, we might as well send those who can speak the lingo.

Once the details of such a requirement became known, we would see a massive drop off in boat people, & an acceptance in Oz that the ones who still came were the type of people we should want to settle here.

A win/win, if ever there was one.

' If they are not prepared to serve this country, there is no reason that this country should have them.'

God I hope they dont deport me. I'm really not keen on joining the Army myself. Do you think it would be hypocritical to expect poor starving immigrants to take up the slack for me?

I'm with that little barking dog guy on this one. What's all the bloody fuss about? I think if someone is brave enough to travel that far in a dingy to get here they have proved their determination to be here, like a true blue strayan.

In a true sign of today's society, I really think we could pay for any cost of setting them up here if we filmed their efforts reality TV style and bet on which boats made it here before sinking.

Now that's more Australian than wearing the Aussie flag like a cape!

Mikk,
Spot on.
Trading in others misery with such criminal indiference to their 'customers'lives, conditions, safety etc. Conditions that are both horrendous and incredibly dangerous, against the laws of most countries etc
Yep sounds like a business venture to me....from hell.
The implied indifference and or distain for these desparate people is inherent in this assumption of Caveat Emptor is positively perverse.
I wonder why if we don't want them here why not give them a positive reason to stay home. Oh yes I forgot the profit might not come this financial cycle.
BTW if it was meant as satire sorry not funny...at all

Ah Examinator, as usual you show a lack of wisdom :)

It would of course be very easy to introduce a luxury service
for asylum seekers, even chartering the Queen Mary for the
job.

That is not the problem. The problem is the contradiction of
Govt, on the one hand claiming to welcome asylum seekers,
on the other hand fighting them off with sticks.

They do this for the very reasons that I have explained. Nobody
had the testicles to see that the UN 1951 convention is updated
to suit our new world conditions of far too many people.

What say you all tell us, how many asylum seekers a year that
you think Australia should accept, and how many you think that
a Govt could risk, without being thrown out by the Australian
public.

GrahamY –one of my posts is missing from this thread.
(22/04/2009 6:37:28 AM Er, CJ Morgan Re your post of : Tuesday, 21 April 2009 2:37:13 PM 1) I don’t know how you....)

Bronwyn,
There’s no doubt about the pro-illegals lobby, they’re very good at playing the heads-we-win-tails-you-lose game.

Firstly they run the line that the West stirred up the war in Afghanistan , which created the refugees and therefore it has a ‘moral responsibility’ to take all and sundry who come our way.

When this is put into doubt i.e. O’Connor & Lines contending that overpopulation & drought may have been the MAIN culprit, they jump straight to plan B:'So what!" the drought must be the result of global warming and the West is to blame for global warming … the ‘moral responsibility’ remains.

If people like Bronwyn had just taken the time to read ‘Overloading Australia’ & other similar sources, they might have learnt that every few decades a major drought afflicted Southern Afghanistan – such droughts would displaced much of the regions population, who would move to the adjoining regions in Pakistan & Iran – and while other factors no doubt contributed, the MAIN, MAIN, MAIN difference this time around was that the population of the region, had since the previous major drought, multiplied ten-fold.

Likewise, the talk of ‘1000’ Vietnamese boat people . The argument as put by CJ Morgan ran : look Australia , we accepted ‘1000’ boat people after Vietnam with no adverse affects , why are you all getting ‘hysterical’ about--a couple of hundred-- this time around. What was left unsaid was the fact that that initial ‘1000’ grew into 100,000 plus. And some of our most recent arrivals have already been enquiring about sponsoring the rest of their extended family/families

There's no doubt about the xenophobic lobby, they'll deploy any factoids they can find in order to rationalise their indifference to the plight of refugees.

Horus is a good example. It actually doesn't matter what the cause is that people are displaced by well-founded fears for their safety, if they seek asylum in Australia we are legally bound to assess their bona fides. If they happen to be fleeing a conflict in which our military are active particants then that just adds a moral obligation as well.

My figure of a total of approximately 1000 Vietnamese 'boat people' is quite correct (and I've already provided the reference - twice), whereas his of 100,000 is clearly a wild guess. Most Vietnamese immigrants came here by air, and of course they've subsequently tried to reunite with their families. Like every other wave of immigrants, over subsequent decades they've become integrated into Australian society, which has been enriched by their presence. I wonder how many generations back we'd have to go to find the immigrants in Horus' genealogy?

With respect to Yabby's disingenuous argument, one way that we could accommodate many more refugees would be to offset population increase in other ways - like axing the 'skilled' migration program, baby bonus and childcare subsidies, for example. I note that he hasn't responded to my suggestion about establishing an Australian assessment centre for asylum seekers in Indonesia, but his concerns for the welfare of refugees aren't really serious, are they?

And I have to agree with the stirrer with the pretentious nickname about Hasbeen's proposal for 4 years' compulsory military service as a condition of citizenship - if that ever came to pass they'd have to deport me too.

Look harder Horus.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2702#60749

Yabby

"The fact remains that Australia cannot take them all Bronwyn. Now tell me, in your opinion how many refugees a year should Australia accept?"

I think Australia could accommodate a humanitarian intake of up to 30 000 a year, which would be a threefold increase on our current contribution.

As stated by CJ, this would need to be done in tandem with a substantial reduction in our skilled migration intake, which I think from memory is now about 130 000, and as well a scrapping of any internal population growth carrots like the ludicrous baby bonus.

"If Australia decided to only take asylum seekers from countries which ajoin us, the rest of the refugee quota, whatever is decided, from refugee camps all over the world, that would be fair and cost effective. The present system is neither cost effective or fair."

I've answered your question, Yabby, so perhaps you can answer mine. What would be your idea of a 'cost effective and fair system'?

CJ

".. the stirrer with the pretentious nickname .."

:)

In (–http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2702#60709)
CJ Morgan argued:
“ Some of us even think that if our government wants to go and stick its nose in the internal affairs of a country… then we have a moral obligation to accept as refugees those poor bastards who've been displaced by Western miltary adventurism”

When challenged he backtracked to …

In (–http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2702#60709)
“It actually doesn't matter what the cause is” as long as they feel threatened

So having played the old -- Western imperialism/militarism caused all the woes of the world --blame game and been found out he shifted his ground

The strange truth is, had we not gotten involved in Afghanistan, those in CJ’s camp would have seen our lack of involvement as contributory/culpability , remember post Rwanda, the chorus was: ‘the West should have acted” !
Heads-I-win-tales-you- lose, again.

But he has got a point ( to him & other kindred spirits) IT DOESN’T MATTER.
--it doesn’t matter that the illegals have lied and cheated and bribed and bullied there way to our shores.
---it doesn’t matter that many masquerading as Afghanis will actually be from elsewhere
---It doesn’t matter many/most will shortly after securing status in Aust, make a mockery of their ‘refugee’ pretence, by returning to their old countries.

CJ and others may have great faith in our processes ability to determine the illegals bona fides. Unfortunately, I cannot share their faith. For having worked with, employed & even taught English to many previous cycles of ‘refugees’.I am of the opinion that practical all of them were running to our better standard of living– rather than, running away from persecution.

Our assessment processes, subject as there are to vocal pro-refugee lobby groups and, interfering politicians are a nonsense .


Bugsy -–trust me, it wasn’t there before (must be those dastardly pro loddyists mucking around)

Bronwyn:"CJ ".. the stirrer with the pretentious nickname .."
:)"

What's pretentious about "Pomeranian"?

As for the rest, I'm ambivalent. There may be some who are just seeking to take advantage, but I suspect that most of the people who are prepared to up stumps and leave their country for a slim chance at being allowed to enter a different one are genuine strivers. Whether the actual impetus to leave was financial or more dire, these are people who are prepared to "have a go".

When economic migrants left England in the 19th and 20th centuries, or were transported for stealing food they needed to live, they inculcated this country with a sense of the rightness of "having a go" and an admiration for those who do so. what has happened in the 21st century that we so devalue this wonderful human characteristic?

Have we become a nation of bureaucrats, living off the productive work of others somewhere a long way a way where we don't have to see the dirt and mess, let alone step in it? What a pathetic state of affairs. How embarrassing.

There is an apology to Fractelle in a post to the topic 'ALARMING TRENDS in the US' that in reality belongs here on the 'May they rot in hell' thread. This post, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2709#60818 , which was misposted to the 'ALARMING TRENDS in the US' thread, explains what happened.

The misposted post was addressed to Horus and Bugsy on this thread by way of explanation as to why Horus may have temporarily lost sight of a post.

As Bronwyn has responded to the content of the misposted post on the other thread, apologies to her for any confusion or misunderstanding created. Apologies to anyone else who has been confused by my screw-up.

For the record, here is the link that Fractelle had originally posted on this thread that I had precipitated the removal of, the link I stuffed up the reposting of: http://www.usyd.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=3283

And, with the ending of those two phrases each with a preposition, I shall conclude this clarification.

Clear as mud Sir Humphrey.

Houellebecq is nowhere near as pretentious as examinator. Anyway I just like the guy. I like the spirit of the accusers too.

Forrest

As a result I posted a thank you on the "alarming Trends" thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2709&page=0#60839

Bronwyn

If you are waiting for a reasoned reply to your question: "What would be your idea of a 'cost effective and fair system'?"

You may be waiting a while, for the crustacean would require a complete rebuild of his entire world view, before applying thought to the plight of people fleeing from unimaginable conditions to be met with internment in camps set up to avoid laws that would normally be applicable if they were to set foot in Australia.

Howard's Pacific Solution, is only minus a couple of concentration camps and the insidious TRV; Australia's border policy remains one of the harshest in the world.

Leigh,

There is an element of truth when you say that the Afghans have to help themselves. But there's also an element of truth when I said that the ordinary Afghanis have so much stacked up against them that even if they wanted to help themselves, they couldn't.

The only solution to this problem is for the world to flatten itself out. That means getting rid of abject poverty AND the uber-rich like matter/anti-matter pairs and replacing them with more balanced lifestyles across the globe. I don't know how this could be done, but thinking about what constitutes a better world would be a start.

CJ sorry, I did not mean to ignore your question. I gather that
there is already a UNHCR processing centre in Indonesia, only
their criteria are a bit stricter then those in Aus, so alot lower
% of people are found to be genuine.

The Australian Govt is of course free to take those people over those
which exist in refugee camps. That would only encourage even more
people to travel to Indonesia, causing a problem for their Govt.

Bronwyn, 30'000 a year is not an unreasonable figure. You will
just need to convince the rest of the Australian people that your
suggested number is a fair one. Any political party could include
it in their platform.

I am pretty sure that earlier on I mentioned what I would do to
make things more cost effective and fair. Only accept
asylum seekers who are nationals of countries which are our
neighbours. All the rest are selected from refugee camps or
similar, in other parts of the world. Be that 13000 or 30000, is not an issue for me.

Forrest

"As Bronwyn has responded to the content of the misposted post on the other thread, apologies to her for any confusion or misunderstanding created. Apologies to anyone else who has been confused by my screw-up."

I realised after I'd made that post that you'd stuffed up, but I wasn't at all worried. It actually gave me a good opportunity to make a point on the other thread, so thank you! :)

Fractelle

"You may be waiting a while, for the crustacean would require a complete rebuild of his entire world view, before applying thought to the plight of people fleeing from unimaginable conditions .. "

LOL! And so spot on.

I learnt long ago that Yabby's heart is well and truly ruled by his head. And of course he thinks the reverse of the likes of you and me. I usually enjoy his posts though and find him a fair poster in most situations, so hopefully he can come up with a considered and comprehensive reply.

It might involve some tricky wriggling from within his cold, hard, crabby shell though, mightn't it? :)

RobP

"The only solution to this problem is for the world to flatten itself out. That means getting rid of abject poverty AND the uber-rich like matter/anti-matter pairs and replacing them with more balanced lifestyles across the globe. I don't know how this could be done, but thinking about what constitutes a better world would be a start."

Another one of your perceptive observations that deserves repeating I think!

Yes, the tricky part is how do we achieve it. Perhaps as you imply if we really start opening up our minds and evaluting the contrast in lifestyle between ours and that of the asylum seekers we're discussing here, we might just start to ask when is enough enough? And for how long can we continue to use our finite resources so extravagantly and so inequitably? And a whole lot of other difficult questions besides.

Putting up barriers is the easy option. But like all easy options, it creates far more problems than it solves.

Sorry, Yabby, I should have 'refreshed' before I posted.

Thanks for your reply. It's only half an answer though.

"Only accept asylum seekers who are nationals of countries which are our neighbours."

So how do you put that into practice? You know full well the majority of asylum seekers are coming from the Middle East, so how do you exclude them without running a discriminatory system, and one that would very quickly and correctly be open to claims of racism?

"All the rest are selected from refugee camps or similar, in other parts of the world. Be that 13000 or 30000, is not an issue for me."

So how do you propose we deal with boat people?

You haven't thought it through very well yet, Yabby. Not like you, but I'm confident you can do better.

"Bronwyn, 30'000 a year is not an unreasonable figure. You will just need to convince the rest of the Australian people that your suggested number is a fair one. Any political party could include it in their platform."

I think you'll find the Greens policy is already fairly close to what I've outlined. Getting either of the other parties to forgo the skilled migration milking cow is a huge ask and won't happen for a long time yet

*I learnt long ago that Yabby's heart is well and truly ruled by his head. *

Well I should friggin hope so LOL. The emotionally engulfed are
slaves to their emotions. I have learnt to cope with life and
its realities. You should go back and read Goleman's "Emotional
Intelligence" once again.

*so how do you exclude them without running a discriminatory system, and one that would very quickly and correctly be open to claims of racism?*

No matter what system you come up with, somebody will complain, but
such is life. There are refugees all over the world, so take some
from all areas. How many from Burma manage to sail to Australia?
Why are they forgotten? What about North Koreans?

*So how do you propose we deal with boat people?*

So close down the boat trade. Take nobody. They get towed back to
where they came from. After the original howls of protest, when
people realise there is no chance, they won't waste their money.
You won't have a boat trade. We only have one because people
realise that there is a very good chance of a visa in Australia,
just like their relatives landed up doing.

In an ever more crowded world, this problem is only going to get
bigger, not smaller. At some point in the future you are going
to have to deal with it.

Horrendous, you responded to me back a bit, and I truthfully think it isn't polite not to respond back. (OK. I know that's lousy grammar!)

I can't be bothered to respond to the substance however. You are holding your own on this thread very well, and I view with some pleasure and satisfaction that there are those here who can dispute some of what you and your likeminded say, with far more skill than myself.

With great respect to all (sincerely): hospitalisation/overseas/and getting back pronto for more emergency surgery with more to come has done two things;

1) I notice I am struggling to do what was easier previously,-the spell checker has become a bosom pal, and for someone who spells well, it appalls me to view sometimes what I've just written-it wasn't in my head like that!! It's so damned annoying, because I came back to OLO looking for precisely this topic....I knew it would be here!

2) This is the 'great respect part: nothing changes.It's like picking up on a soapie after a long absence.I don't agree with the views of folk like you Horrors; and you don't agree with me. Have we ever changed the view of someone here or elsewhere on discussion forums? maybe in some degree, but not specifically.

Having said that, the importance of such discussion cannot be underestimated. It is a vital democratic tool, and has on rare occasion,- influenced Governmental decisions.

There are good counterclaptrapper folk and folkesses in this place. Meaning of course, that those I disagree with, are talking .rap!

So do carry on.

>>As for the rest, I'm ambivalent. There may be some who are just seeking to take advantage, but I suspect that most of the people who are prepared to up stumps and leave their country for a slim chance at being allowed to enter a different one are genuine strivers. Whether the actual impetus to leave was financial or more dire, these are people who are prepared to "have a go".<<

To further this point a bit, in the latter half of his Government, John Howard effectively offered a mea culpa for his disparaging comments towards Vietnamese boatpeople during the 1970s and 80s. Even though, he may have done this partly for electoral advantage, I doubt he would have said it if he didn't mean it. Coming from Howard that was strong endorsement for the powers of industriousness and persistence of the Vietnamese.

It just goes to show you can't judge a book by its cover. Normally, the refugees that have had the hardest time, are the ones that turn out to be the best citizens because they're so happy to be here. It's more likely to be the native population that get everything put on a plate that develop a sense of entitlement and who turn into fat, lazy cats. Just have a look at the Public Service. Not too many refugees there!

Yabby,
Have been away for a bit and looks like this thread has attracted a lot of posts.

Looks like Sancho has gone after being confronted a few facts. Hope that is the end of the 'more illegals come by air' speil.

You mentioned that the UNHCR criteria defining a genuine refugee was stricter that what the Aussie criteria is. I have heard that also. Are you aware of any evidence or documentation about this? It could be handy as it looks like more illegals will be arriving.

I notice that the latest arrivals are all young males and that stengthens my beleif that that the illegals do know they will only have to be on Christmas Island for a couple of months and then granted permanent residency, thus giving them access to more social welfare and services with the BIG plus of bringing the rest of their families here under the family reunion provisions.

The Temporary Protection Visas of the previous government did not allow this and I reckon that is the big attraction now.

Even though they seem to have funds to pay others for passage, they do not come as tourists and then simply dissappear when their visa expires. No they want to get permanent residency so they can get our welfare and bring others here.

We have problems in sending them back as Indonesia doesn't want them and if they have no documentation we cannot prove where they actually come from.

It should have been made a point earlier - But 6-7 thousand Asian Girls smuggled into the country as sex slaves- By Air I assume.
No leaky boats detected ; Maybe Sancho means these Girls in his count . But they are real victims- and silence of the lambs
That is a good reason to be; not just critical of the Government, but all of its departments.
I don’t know how much faith in the Buaerocratic system some may hold, but if Trafficking sex slaves can fly in , and the human misery industry flourishes , it would be reasonable to ask how this is possible ? Who is getting cash up front bonus?
And they are in charge of the country .

"Looks like Sancho has gone after being confronted a few facts." (Quote: Bongo).

This is bliddy irritating! What smarmy arrogance!

I haven't backed away-I'm tired is all.

We now have Sri Lankans on their way. You can bet your boots that they're Tamil Tigers hell bent on taking over our country.

That's it. I'm going to Araldite the BBQ to the back wall.

I'm ready for 'em.

............that 'server error' thing is an absolute turd! Trying for the fourth time...

All-,
Bloody oath, I agree with you The WHOLE book should be thrown at the bastards that traffic in these girls. They are held captive and can't speak English and got no hope. It seems, under the present set up, the girls are held as the crimials when it should be the trafficers.

A much, much tougher line has to be taken here and if anyone deserved permanent residency it should be these girls, if they want that.

If I had anything to do with this I would give the girls every opportunity I could and really smash the trafficers.

It reaslly troubles me that the ones that are trafficing seem to get off lightly.

If you can get some stats or other validation on this I would like to know.

Don't worry Ginx - Inspector Bongo's on the case! While he's gathering data, he might like to check out the wealth of facts available at

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090417-A-Crikey-index-Refugees-the-real-story.html

since his sleuthing talents obviously haven't extended thus far as yet. Who knows, he may even discover why his persistent and deliberate misuse of the pejorative term "illegals" is both incorrect in law and offensive.

Yabby: << I gather that there is already a UNHCR processing centre in Indonesia, only their criteria are a bit stricter then those in Aus, so alot lower% of people are found to be genuine. >>

That's just crap Yabby - the criteria are exactly the same. The trouble is, of those found to be genuine asylum seekers by UNHCR less than 100 are accepted from refugee camps in Indonesia annually. If Australia (and other wealthy nations) were to set up their own processing centres there would undoubtedly be enormous benefits to the hapless refugees who are stuck in limbo in Indonesia.

In fact, they might even set up something like a 'queue' of the sort that onshore refugees are often accused of 'jumping'. Currently, there isn't one.

That's what you were arguing for, wasn't it Yabby - a fair go for refugees? Or were you just having a lend of us like I suggested?

*You mentioned that the UNHCR criteria defining a genuine refugee was stricter that what the Aussie criteria is*

Banjo, as far as I know, the definiton is the same, just that our
Aussies are perhaps more gullible then some of the UNHCR officers.

Now just imagine if Bronwyn, Fractelle and Foxy had the job of
interviewing potential applicants. Hehe, they would be a pushover :)

I just remember the figures from when they were debated back a few
years ago. Acceptance in Australia was around 90%, in Indonesia by
UNHCR officers, around 60%.

These are the UNHCR definitions, it is pretty easy to claim
asylum, that is why I think the 1951 Convention needs updating
to cope with today's world.

http://www.unhcr.org.uk/press/reporting/guidance/terminology.html

As to people burning their passports, they do it because it gets
them results. In my opinion, much has changed in terms of our
international relations, with Indonesia, Afghanistan and Iraq.

If a Govt with testicles set out to end the boat trade, sending
people home, even after they have burned their passports, would
put a stop to that.

But of course most of our politicians are poodles, few have any
testicles left, so they will just plod on, blame those evil
people transporters and refuse to address the core problem of this
issue.

I caught the SBS late news a short time ago:

Within a short time it was blatantly obvious what line SBS favoured re refugees: it wasn’t so much as news program as a re-education session.

First they had Rudd giving his spiel: the surge in refugees reflected a spike in world refugees and the current trouble in Sri Lanka was likely to add to that regionally.
[The camera stayed on Rudd while he spoke, without interruption]
Then they had Julian Burnside QC: the burn victims had suffered horribly and it would be immoral to send them back to Indonesia and even worse to send them back to where they originally came from.
[again the camera stayed on Burnsides face as he spoke, without interruption ]
Then they had an SBS reporter: with a graph showing how few refugees arrivals we had had last year compared to Yemen & two other countries, whose names escapes me.
[ The camera gave the report its full attention ]
Then they had Tim Costello preaching ‘compassion’ and decrying the ‘hysteria’.
[ again full attention –uninterrupted speech]
And finally-and with the shortest time clip of all –they had Malcolm Turnbull.From memory – because it was only very short –Malcolm didn’t actually get to speak for himself – we were told he had criticised the govts refugee policy.
[.While Malcolm’s position was being reported, the camera actually cut back to the burning boat and the refugees in the water ]

So much for fair an balance reporting --- Goebbels could not have done it any better!

Anyway – I wasn’t going to get back into the fray because, when I checked earlier in the evening, peace and goodwill seemed to have broken out ¬.

And Ginx had written a warm & sensitive post earlier in the day – before she got all grumpy again .

My original intention was to simply to say Hi , thanks and all the best Ginx &,PS I hope any personal issues you have are resolved real soon…



Cheers!

Ooo, I know Horrie; I know. But when I see more .rap.....

Still, I do like what you were going to say. Thanks!

*If Australia (and other wealthy nations) were to set up their own processing centres there would undoubtedly be enormous benefits to the hapless refugees who are stuck in limbo in Indonesia.*

If Australia set up their own processing centre there CJ, your
problem of more people flocking there would grow, not diminish.
Of course they are frustrated. They were encouraged to spend
lots of money, with a good chance of a visa. We encouraged them.
So its best to change out policy, as I have suggested.

*Currently, there isn't one.*

Yes there is a queue, but it is not based on standing in line.
I am not sure of the criteria that the Govt uses to select who
comes next from the refugee camps, but clearly there must be some
kind of system in place. That system should be openly published, so
that we all know what it is and can discuss it. Perhaps it has
been, I am just not aware of it. That does not mean that it does
not exist. Govt relies on procedure to do anything.

*a fair go for refugees? Or were you just having a lend of us like I suggested?*

I have argued for lots of things. A fairer system is one of them.

Yabby: << So its best to change out policy, as I have suggested. >>

What change in policy have you suggested - beyond clearly disingenuous appeals for a 'fairer' process? I've proposed a couple, as have Bronwyn and others. I'd be comfortable with an increase in our refugee intake to a level of 30,000 (or more) in tandem with the removal of other incentives for increasing our population.

Be honest, Yabby. This entire thread is an essentially dishonest attempt to stir up the latent xenophobic sentiments of that self-interested proportion of our community who oppose Australia having a humanitarian foreign policy that demands that we live up to our treaty obligations to accept genuine refugees, isn't it?

*This entire thread is an essentially dishonest attempt to stir up the latent xenophobic sentiments*

CJ, I don't mind you accusing me of lots of things, but not of
dihonesty. I might express my opinions far too bluntly for some,
for too tactlessly for others, but I say what I think, warts and all.

What I have highlighted in this thread, is the obvious contradiction
that applies to our asylum seeker policy, by both parties.

I've suggested solutions, they might be outside the square, but
I challenge you or anyone else to show where my thinking is flawed.

So far neither you nore anyone else has done so.

Get real, Yabby. You disingenuously claim that you want refugees to be treated fairly in their claims to asylum in Australia.

Some of us have suggested ways that Australia could not only enhance our assessment of such claims, but also increase the numbers of legitimate refugess we could accept - while actually decreasing the current rate of population growth, no less.

What's your alternative - that because there's currently no fair way of assessing refugees' claims we shouldn't accept any?

CJ, I thought I had spelled it out quite clearly, but it seems
not clearly enough for you.

What I have suggested is that we shut down the boat trade as it
is not a fair way of deciding who comes to Australia.

I have suggested that we can take whatever number we decide on,
be that 13000 or 30000, from refugee camps and suchlike, from
around the world.

Shutting down the boat trade would be a huge savings in resources
all round, which could be put to better use.

"may they rot in hell" and as the ship sinks in their own part of the world, the rats will keep on coming and it will not stop. Australia is not a free for all and the sooner you all wake up to the fact and shut the gates, because like they believe," we have a right to preserve our race".If you all haven't noticed, this country is cant take the pressure of the foot prints we already have!

Wake up Australia! Humans will not stop breeding! and as their own over-populated burn-out counties spills out on their shore lines, the same thing will happen here!

Sorry people! The welcome mat is closed.

Go back and complain to your own governments and ask why they have not seen the dilemma of over-population, that now we see is causing all the rats to leave the ship!

And this has nothing to do with race! But we do have an obligation for the people that already inhabit our wonderful life-stile.

Life is very hard in other parts of the world, and you all want Australia to join their over-crowded misery, I suggest that all who feel sorry for the poor hard done-bys, go back with them in their boats and f..king join them!

Have you people lost your minds?

And YES PEOPLE!

WE HAVE A RIGHT to save our country for our children, and you goodie two shoes just want to give it all away?

The cronulla riots was just the beginning.

Mark my words.

EVO

CJ, I strongly agree and strongly disagree with you. In your second last post, you wrote;

“I'd be comfortable with an increase in our refugee intake to a level of 30,000 (or more) in tandem with the removal of other incentives for increasing our population.”

Absolutely.

But….

“This entire thread is an essentially dishonest attempt to stir up the latent xenophobic sentiments of that self-interested proportion of our community who oppose Australia having a humanitarian foreign policy that demands that we live up to our treaty obligations to accept genuine refugees, isn't it?”

Not at all. It is an essential debate.

The onshore asylum-seeker / people-smuggling ‘option’ MUST be shut down entirely.

Rudd’s watering down of the policy on this issue stands out as one of the stupidest political decisions in the history of this country.

But….

“This entire thread is an essentially dishonest attempt to stir up the latent xenophobic sentiments of that self-interested proportion of our community who oppose Australia having a humanitarian foreign policy that demands that we live up to our treaty obligations to accept genuine refugees, isn't it?” (CJ)

"Not at all. It is an essential debate." (Ludwig)

Wee-e-elll,..er no. The post before yours confirms what CJ is saying.

I assume EVO is short for evolution. Posts like the one I refer to, show that that tag is entirely appropriate,-if only to prove that some folk have NOT evolved and are still dragging their knuckles.......

EVO2; why don't you stand on the coast in some sort of animal cloth, and a roughly hewn club with nails in it.

It would make you feel much better. (I suspect you'd look better too).

Ginx

EVO2; why don't you stand on the coast in some sort of animal cloth, and a roughly hewn club with nails in it.

It would make you feel much better. (I suspect you'd look better too).

Why Ginxy! Do you think it would help. smile.

EVO

Yabby
Lack of wisdom? Perhaps you need a dictionary no better yet you need to think your stance through a bit better. Pity you didn't watch Q& A the other night. The issue was well covered.
In your terms All those silly workers who are suffering from Asbestos diseases JHI were well justified in their lack of regard for them and the law. They were meeting a market need.
Essentially it's the same principal. We as a country are contracted international agreements to take refugees.
Some people don't have queues to jump.
Caring is all so lacking in wisdom. Best to be rigid and binary minded
As for the contradiction in govt attitudes …..if only running a country was that simple. :-)

Yesterday I came in in the middle of a discussion on this topic (on TV), so I don't know who the speaker was.

He referred to 2008.

Italy took 35,000 refugees.

Australia took 200.

Whatever your point of view; we ALL know full well that if the media choose to bring a topic to the forefront and make it a big issue-they will. And they have.

(For the record, we had more boat refugees arrive here in the first 4 months of 2008, than we have had in 2009).

*We as a country are contracted international agreements to take refugees.*

Duh Examinator. You don't say lol.

Perhaps you had better read through some of the posts as to what
I have actually suggested, for your last post was basically
dribble.

Ginx, I think you are confusing the figures for asylum seekers, with
those of refugees.

Yes, European countries such as Italy, Spain, Greece, England
and the rest, are facing huge problems. The boat trip from Africa
is not far and plenty want a better life, so they take their chances.

The social problems from all this, are also enormous.

200 might have arrived by boat in Australia, the balance would have
been taken from refugee camps, as I understand Australia accepts
around 10'000 a year.

Increase the boat arrivals, less come from refugee camps.

That is hardly fair to those who don't try to push their way in,
by whatever means they can afford.

"Ginx, I think you are confusing the figures for asylum seekers, with
those of refugees...........

...............That is hardly fair to those who don't try to push their way in,
by whatever means they can afford.

Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 26 April 2009 2:30:18 PM"

First point: you could be correct, Yabby. I came into the conversation late.

However, I will never change my view that Australia is NOT being overrun by refugees, boat or otherwise. We have a lamentable record in terms of our intake. And one other thing; it curdles my blood that many of you would prefer the policies of the Howard regime that were vile and inhuman, AND diminished Australia's standing on the global stage considerably.

Liberal OR Conservative (because that IS where we are now. Spare me the bullhits of a current 'Socialist' Government),...I pray we NEVER again see a Howardist type regime.

Second point: 'pushing their way in' is surely the operating system for many developed countries including Australia, who go into countries to 'liberate' them, and cause nothing but chaos and death,-and profiteering by many..

I'm not surprised that people are 'on the run'. Their countries are being decimated by this 'liberation', OR by greed, and corruption, practised by despots that the developed world wantonly ignores. No attempt at liberation there? I wonder why?

There is a third point: I don't have the fortitude any longer to argue such points ad nauseum.
I will hold my view; you will hold yours.

I have no intention of repeating myself.

Ginx, in a way you make my point for me, as all the kerfuffle
with asylum seekers from the boat trade exists, because various
Govts have applied double standards when it comes to the
UN 1951 convention.

They do so for good reasons. The convention is out of date,
full of holes and open to misuse.

That is why I made my point. To finally fix this, we need to
change the convention, bring it up to date, so that we live by what
we believe and agree to. But no Govt has the testicles to tackle
it, so they each plod on and push the problem into the next Govt's
court. This present mob will be no different. So the saga will
continue.