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.