Thanks for the reply CJ. Here’s another triple post in response…for you reading pleasure! ( :>)

“…on the issue of asylum seekers we are evidently poles apart. I suspect it's mostly because I'm a greenie who's also a humanist with a libertarian streak, while you seem to be a greenie who's basically misanthropic with an authoritarian streak.”

Now now, you know full well after all the time that we’ve been exchanging views on this forum that I’m not at all misanthropic. It’s just a tad dishonest and scurrilous to throw up that attempted sleight.

Authoritarian? Yes I am inasmuch as I believe in strong governance and a well-respected rule of law. What would you call yourself when it comes to effectively law and governance?

“Yours [position] seems to be that we should limit Australia's population by making it really, really difficult for bona fide refugees to come to Australia by boat.”

No. We need to stem population growth by reducing immigration and disincentivising births, rather than incentivising them as per the baby bonus. Onshore refugee arrivals are only distantly related to population growth and sustainability, unless of course the numbers become very high...in the order of many thousands per year.

My position is all about achieving tight control of our borders, which effectively means shutting down the onshore movement of asylum seekers….and having a very good input into refugee issues without having to deal with the ongoing really ugly, expensive, socially disruptive, humanitarianly difficult issue of asylum seekers.

Sure, that would be unfortunate for those who would head our way with genuine refugee claims. But it seems to me that you CJ and several others on OLO have a strong bias towards onshore refugees compared to offshore refugees in camps in Africa and elsewhere, that are for the most part considerably needier of resettlement in Oz. I don’t understand why you seem to think that those that have mobilised and paid for the services of people smugglers are more deserving than those that are brought here from refugee camps.

continued

And as for visa overstayers, well I’m authoritarian well and truly. It should be absolutely clamped down on. I don’t understand why this is so difficult or unpalatable. What is your position CJ? Are you less authoritarian about this?

“While you claim to be opposed to the 'Skilled Migration' programme that brings in hundreds of thousands more, you don't appear to devote much commentary to it here - nor even the idiotic 'Baby Bonus'.”

Crikey, I’ve expressed my disgust at the BB and opposition to SM how many times on this forum? Only about 50 000 !! I don’t need to restate it on absolutely every thread that is remotely related to the subject! (:>|

“I think that the Australian Government is legally and morally obligated to accept as many genuine refugees as we can reasonably accommodate.”

Yes! The key word being ‘reasonably’.

That takes me back to the sorts of questions that I’ve asked you a number times before and have not received answers;

How can we accommodate sporadic arrivals or a small stream of onshore refugees and treat them as well as you would wish them to be treated without risking opening the ‘floodgates’? How on earth do we regulate this or have any real control over it, without attempting to shut it right down or very strongly disincentivise it? How do we strongly discourage this movement without tying up those involved in detention centres, etc? How do we treat them even a little more humanely without being seen as a soft touch target country? What would the point be of striving to allow a very small number to come here via this route? Why wouldn’t we comprehensively close the proverbial gate instead?

continued

The answer to me is very straightforward – strive to shut it right down. Process those who insist on coming here in offshore detention centres. Maintain the message around the world that Australia is definitely not a soft target. Concentrate on offshore refugees...and on programs that address refugee issues at their sources. Considerably boost our international aid effort accordingly. Boost the total refugee intake to 25 000 per annum, while at the same time reducing our total immigration intake to net zero, which would be around 30 000. Strive directly for population stabilisation and sustainability and a much-improved international humanitarian effort all at the same time.

“One thing that is certain is that the numbers of bona fide refugees who seek to come here will only increase in coming years…”

Yes! So for goodness sake, we’ve got to make sure that we are not going to put ourselves in a position where we are subjected to a very large and ongoing number of boats full of desperate people. We absolutely MUST strive to shut this movement down.

A-bet-each-way Rudd seems to realise this, despite his stuuupid weakening of Howard’s border-protection policy. Thank goodness for small mercies!

“And you responded very well - not to mention those whose company you keep when it comes to 'boat people'. Shame on you all.”

Beats me what you are trying to say here. Is this a compliment or a belt over the back of the head… or both? ( :>/

The issue of whether Australia should want, or should not want, refugees and migrants, in the FINAL analysis resides in one's PERSONAL OUTLOOK and PHILOSOPHIES: I realise this because I've spent an entire lifetime acutely observing human nature.

THAT'S WHY all the myriad of facts, statistics, figures and history presented by ALL sides of the debate are MOOT points.

No matter what someone else thinks or proves, if a person believes that refugees and migration are "bad" for Australia then THEY WILL CONTINUE TO THINK THAT WAY NO MATTER WHAT

And - - -

No matter what someone else thinks or proves, if a person believes that refugees and migration are "good" for Australia then THEY WILL CONTINUE TO THINK THAT WAY NO MATTER WHAT.

FACT: Not ONE person is going to change their mind on the refugee/migration subject no matter what anyone writes on these pages. THAT'S A FACT!

It all comes down to one's "philosophical" attitude.

It's my "opinion" and philosophy, that in times of crisis ALL countries (not just 1st world countries) have a humanitarian duty to help displaced persons. The "help" includes accepting them within the country, and ALL countries need to share the load. It's an ABSOLUTE FURPHY that Australia can't take more people due to ecological reasons, and I'm an old greenie. When I hear that sort of rubbish I INSTANTLY know the speaker bases his/her objection to refugees and migration on PHILOSOPHICAL and/or POLITICAL grounds. In other words, just plain old MEANISM.

It NEVER ceases to amaze me the depth of inhumanity within people, the world over. If someone's in need, they should be helped.

The objection to refugees and migration is usually just based on a political and/or philosophical outlook that has plain old MEANISM and/or FEAR OF DIFFERENCE as it's core values.

It is seemed that we have two type of greenies, the humanists and non humanists.

Non humanist greenies.
The hard core of greenies do not care very much for humans but mainly for the environment, for them humans are one other kind of the animals and its value is not bigger from a pet, in realy their value is lower from a pet as they destroy the environment and create problems on the earth. They are ready for hard ways to protect the environment. I thing some of them would be happy if we decide to reduce the number of human population if we can find the right spray! For them human needs, human pain, human solidarity are not important and they prefer to leave the nature to make its selection between humans. Social sensitivity and responsibility, social justice and international law have small value and they can be ignored if this is supportive to environment. They are against migration, refugees and many births.

Humanist Greenies. These creatures are very sensitive on environment issues, they fight for environment protection but they do not forget that they are humans, that they are part of human society and they are ready to undertake their responsibilities and support people in needs, migrants, refugees, aged people or children. They have developed social sensitivites and responsibilities, developed international sensitivities and responsibilities. THEY ARE GOOD POLITICIANS, GOOD PERSONS BUT PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED FROM THE GREENIES AS BETWEEN THEM THERE ARE SO BIG DIFFERENTS.
If I had to choice between CJ Morgan and Ludwig I will choice 100% CJ Morgan and I will not choice Ludwig.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

“It's an ABSOLUTE FURPHY that Australia can't take more people due to ecological reasons, and I'm an old greenie.”

Master, how can an old greenie hold this view?

I’m an old greenie from way back, as ex-president of the North Queensland Conservation Council (1992-3) and two other greenie NGO groups, and former state candidate for the Qld Greens (1995). Full of pseudogreenies all those groups are! So many years put into that sort of thing. What an extraordinary waste of time. Now I don’t have a bar of it.

Excuse me for thinking that you cannot conceptualise sustainability. That is; the balance between people and the pressures on resources and environment that they create, and the health of the environment and the ongoing ability for the resource base to provide us with a decent quality of life.

I mean, OF COURSE Australia can’t take too many more people for ecological reasons and for reasons pertaining to the continuance of a decent quality of life for us humans.

“Not ONE person is going to change their mind on the refugee/migration subject no matter what anyone writes on these pages. THAT'S A FACT!”

Hmmm. You are probably pretty well right about people not changing their views on refugees and migrants, if they have well-developed views. But most people don’t. In fact, the vast majority are somewhere between totally apathetic and rudimentarily interested….and are wide open to developing views on this subject.

Many others have developed views after only hearing one side of the story. If they read opposing views on OLO, in newspapers or hear them in the media, or best of all, hear them in social conversation, then many of them would be wide open to modifying their views.

So I’ve got to disagree with your “THAT’S A FACT” hard and fast views.

What do you think of my desired outlook on our national approach to refugees, asylum seekers, immigrants and sustainability, as expressed in my last post, in particular my desire to greatly boost our refugee intake and input into refugee issues while greatly reducing our total immigration intake?