Master its no fact Banjo has told you what it is yabby too now me.
Banjo I am if nothing a realist.
Yes the outcome of open doors is not improving world living standards ,just reducing ours.
I however want better outcomes, less mouths to feed is a start, birth control but how do you impose it?
And where?
India it is said, is it true? see,s child murder if the child is not a son.
China may well be the same.
Right now horrible acts drive middle east and far east people to risk every thing to come here.
Or never forget we are just one country of a great many, European , American, bound people.
It is said Howard stopped them, he did but at what cost to our good name?
The UN that total wast of air and money gave us heaps, and if real could fix this problem.
Aid must be withdrawn, yes massive deaths but stopped to country's that use it as weapons or only feed some self reliance must be first step.
Now, curled up in a ball under my desk I whisper this.
This proud left of centre till death trade unionist is afraid.
I am all for true multi Culturism, two cultures ours and theirs ok no pain.
I understand it can not be easy coming to a new land.
But I am afraid, far too many second and third generation migrants still say they are not Aussies.
And call us names yes act like racists , I prefer fools to describe them.
I dare not say the nationality or religion of those I fear but I am no racist.
If we each said lets pay another $50 a week tax to give such people a life in their own country even that would not work.
If this country said we will take one million this year ,it would not work ten million would ask to come next year.
But we must not let such horrible lives go without looking for answers.

Whether or not the figure of 10,000 is correct, asylum seeker numbers are rising worldwide due to conflicts in Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sri Lanka etc. We can expect numbers of 'boat people' trying to seek asylum in Australia to increase concomitantly in coming years, although Australia will, by virtue of its geographical position, continue to have proportionately less refugees arriving by boat than comparable European countries.

I think that Australia should increase the number of refugees we accept under our Humanitarian Programme and reduce to zero the number of applicants accepted under the skilled migration and other immigration programs. We should also negotiate with the Indonesian and/or Malaysian governments in order to radically increase our capacity to process offshore applications for asylum.

I also think that the beleaguered and ineffectual Opposition will try and exploit the increased numbers of asylum seekers by returning to the inhumane tactics of the Howard regime, that appealed to the widespread latent xenophobia and/or racism of many Australians - such as we see expressed by some of the usual suspects in this forum.

It will be ugly.

By the way, the second largest group of successful asylum seekers in Australia in recent years came from China by air, on various other kinds of temporary visas, and applied for asylum once here. However, we don't tend to hear about them because they arrive singly or in small family groups, and are apparently not as newsworthy as the hapless souls who arrive by boat.

Good thread Belly.

Yes CJ, asylum seekers trying to come to Australia are only going to increase in number as conflicts worsen around the world, if there is any chance of them being able to come here. The problem was pretty well under control when Rudd won the top job. The last thing we needed was for him to be so utterly stupid as to water down the policy and reopen the door to people-smugglers.

Howard’s policy had effectively stopped onshore asylum seeking. We had reached the point where there was practically no one left in detention centres and no one on the way for it to apply to. So why on earth did Rudd feel the need to tamper with it?? ?? ?? ??

No CJ, Howard’s policy was not inhumane. It was a pretty damn good balance in an awfully difficult situation, between accepting asylum seekers and processing their claims and then accepting the vast majority of them as refugees, while implementing the vitally important deterrence factor.

Numerous times on this forum we have discussed this and the discussion has come to a grinding halt when I have asked you and others how you would have done it differently, in such a manner that would not have opened the proverbial floodgates. You don’t have an answer to this do you.

I agree that Australia should increase the number of refugees we accept, but only within our formal immigration program. And yes, we should also greatly reduce our skills intake.

-This immigration thing, it’s very “us” vs “them”.

-I know your average Aussie thinks this is a great place to live but there is a feeling of more people will ruin it for them. The water thing: For every human that arrives you could get rid of one farm animal aye.

-I thought the biggest number of immigrants might be Kiwi’s but you wouldn’t notice since they don’t have to seek asylum and stuff?

-I saw on the news the other night that Japan is sending immigrant home now – the South Americans back home with the offer of a free one way ticket.

I liked Yabby’s big ship idea. Make it a big ship that cruises forth once a year around the world and anyone who doesn’t get on does not make their own way here. Take charge, you go get them and don’t let them come to you. Do all the paper work and medical stuff on the boat. By the time the boat gets back you know who you’re getting, where they want to be and what their skills are. Teach them some culture etc before they get here - teach them what being an Aussie is.

But on that note; even I don't know yet.

Belly,
There is, no doubt, things we may not agree on, but I agree that you are a realist and also a practical person.

I wish I had the answers to the problem of the over population of third world countries. If one looks at the number of births per woman (wrongly termed 'fertility') the West seems to have that well under control. China's one child policy is very harsh and in some cultures abortion and infanticide are practised for economic or cultural reasons. Maybe parents need to have sterilization carried out after they produce say 2 kids, but what then happens if one kid dies? Tough issue that needs a lot of high level disscussion.

In relation to bad governments that drive people to seek a better life elsewhere. Another tough question. The UN does not seem very effective so I do not have an answer. Zimbarwe is a total mess and I had hopes that Iraq may embrace democracy but since the fall of Hussein the people there have been more intent on trying to get supperiority over each others groups. The coalition were busy trying to prevent outright civil war. Let us see what happens now. So there are 2 problems, one of bad government and the other is groups that cannot get on with each other.

If the projected figures of possible illegals is anywhere near correct, the present deterrents will have to be more effective. I see not other course at this point. The previous government did reduce the illegals from about 5000 per year to near zero.

I still would like to know what happened to those left in Indonesia that did not try to come here a few years ago.

I would like, on another occassion, to obtain your thoughts regarding multiculturalism and the integration of some cultures. It seems a bit off subject for this thread.

This land can't cope with any more people - skilled or refugees. Where will we get more water?

But CJ, 'I think that Australia should increase the number of refugees we accept under our Humanitarian Programme and reduce to zero the number of applicants accepted under the skilled migration and other immigration programs' - we simply can't afford to be humanitarian if it brings in the death-knoll of our way of life. In the past you picked me up for supporting skilled migrants against refugees when I already advocated no immigration. I repeat myself that we can't afford any more immigrants but, in a worst case scenario, if we had to take more, I would rather have skilled migrants who could put something back into our society than people who would look to the already hard-pressed public for basic support and more. Where I would agree with you would be that if a skilled migrant and a refugee were equally qualified or experienced, I would have no problem in giving the refugee first choice as the skilled migrant would probably not suffer from rejection.
Saying that, I still don't think that we can afford any more people.