Ludwig
Julie might? be playing politics?
The majority of sensible ? logical?? Australians. Come on mate your not that naive. That's so wrong in so many ways/levels.
If the majority of Aussies or any other country for that matter we wouldn't be in the mess we are.
The Howard LED LIB government were appealing to the low level entrenched prejudiced in this country...tired old politics (up dated version of "yellow hordes" and "reds under the bed" That govt was big on spending around election time ....note Costello's words about tax cuts etc. Anything to maintain power.
BTW YOU raised the topic with "onya Julie" because that was what she was talking about.

Yabby
I concur with CJ in his summation and add that you or have no sense of consequential logic or you're playing your childish games again.

Just for others reading
I did say that these threats had been spoken about and used against other recalcitrant countries (sanctions)
There are other countries that would happily take a large portion of Aus share of primary industry trade including the US.

But that may or not be but the point is that we can't afford to thumb our noses at other countries.

Yabby ignored the obvious regarding desperate people being deterred.
Simply put they weren't desperate enough at the time refugee flows fluctuate depending on the conditions in the home countries. Just for those who aren't paying attention the conditions in those countries have deteriorated some what. Fighting in Afghan alone is the worse for years. Lets not forget the logical time lag between an escalating war(s), famine, deteriorating conditions etc and the time the refugees decide enough is enough and go on the move.

Oh yes human rights are just for white people aren't they? Bugger the
the bleeding heart crap what happened to being simply Humane

Ludwig

<< I'm going off to enjoy a run, swim and lie on the beach ... But before that, I note that everyone is discussing onshore asylum seekers and all have missed the vastly more important point that I raised in the opening post; about population and sustainability policy. >>

As pointed out by Fractelle, most of us here agree with you on the urgent need for rigorous population and sustainability policies and have, as she clearly demonstrated, acknowledged that point.

But, dear Ludwig, your initial post was not primarily about that and you know it. You opened with Julie Bishop's crackpot statement on asylum seekers and continued on in the same vein for well over half your post. You had one sentence about population and sustainability policies.

Besides, why would anyone quote Julie Bishop and appeal to the Coalition for leadership in this area, when they've never given it before and when it directly contradicts their philosophical preference for growth-at-all-costs. No Ludwig, as CJ has already pointed out, you very clearly used Julie Bishops's dog-whistle on asylum seekers to once again do your own whistling here.

I can understand CJ not wanting to go through it all again with you when he's just done it recently in the lengthy ten thousand boat people thread, where he calmly and consistently refuted every point you raised and well and truly had your measure, but I have no such weariness. And there are many others here too who've had a neckful of this irrational paranoia and hatred of asylum seekers and will stay with you on this one. So, dear Ludwig, no more retreating to the beach. Come back and participate in the debate you started. :)

You could begin by explaining how we can stop the boats coming without condemning people to danger and death. You keep lauding Howard's policies. Do you ever consider the deaths and the misery those policies created? Or does your mind conveniently blank out at that point? Or do you consider those deaths as justifiable 'collateral damage' if Australia is to maintain its privileged lifestyle?

Oh Dear;
Sancho; we all know that real refugees cannot apply in their home country.
They could apply in Pakistan, or what ever country they ëscape" to.
They must however have a passport otherwise they could not get on a flight to Malaysia.
They could apply at the Australian Embassy in any of the countries they passed through.
However they do not, they prefer to arrive illegally.
That is the start and finish of it.

Bronwyn;
Dear me, if the boats could get to wherever they are intercepted
they could get back to Indonesia.
Some at least are intercepted in the Indonesian Search & Rescue area.
The Navy, if it was obeying international law, would either refuel the
boat and send it to Indonesia or remove the passengers and crew and
take them to the nearest Indonesian port.
That you might remember was what the Norwegian ship was going to do
until he was threatened by those he rescued.

I find it hard to believe that so many people cannot see that the vast
majority of those picked up are not true refugees, but economic migrants.
True refugees would not get that far.

Ludwig is right, we do not have enough water to have an immigration
policy at all. If all is so ok to let them all come send them to
Melbourne, they have plenty of water.

"How wrong you are Ludwig"

Thanks for bringing that to my attention Fractelle. I admit, I'm rushing - not reading stuff carefully enough and not responding to my normal standard of excellence (:>)

But then, them's the breaks when you is on holidays....and have much more important things to do like running on the beach, swimming, sun-bathing and admiring bikini-clad babes!

"Fact: Rudd has not weakened the Pacific Solution set in place by Howard."

Huh?? Now that's just plain false.

Fractelle, I've asked this of CJ and Bronwyn previously and they've come up way short of a good overall answer: What do you want to see happen in regards to onshore asylum seekers? Do you want an open-door policy? Do you want them to be able to move freely in society before they found to be refugees or otherwise? Do you not think that the number of arrivals could escalate greatly if border protection policy is diluted any further, and perhaps could escalate greatly with the current policy as the word spreads around the world?

The small number of arrivals now is incosequential in terms of population growth and sustainability, but it could just so easily escalate and become a significant factor in this regard.

"No Ludwig, as CJ has already pointed out, you very clearly used Julie Bishops's dog-whistle on asylum seekers to once again do your own whistling here."

'Dog-whistling. Please Bronwyn, leave the pre-school vocabulary to Ceej. It doesn't become you. As I explained in the first post, things that are rotten and remain unresolved SHOULD be revisited, and certainly not just let lie. Now wouldn't you do the same thing with subjects that you feel passionate about?

"So, dear Ludwig, no more retreating to the beach. Come back and participate in the debate you started. :)"

Hey Madame Bullybum, my first priority is da BEACH!! But I'll keep participating in the debate as well. In fact I can guarantee that I'll still be here on this thread after everyone else has whittled away! And I can also virtually guarantee, as is evident from multiple past experiences, that the hard questions won't get answered and that this discussion will stop midstream as a result, as unresolved as ever.

But we'll give it a go regardless.

Just be a bit patient with mwe pwease. I'm on long-service leave. So OLO is not my first priority... compared to being at home...where it reigns supreme over work, home life, health, and everything else!! ( :>/

Now what's that you asked - "Do you ever consider the deaths and the misery those policies created?" etc, etc.

Ooow, look at that beautiful day out there [gazing out the window of the Trinity Beach post office]. Nope, I'm off. Da beach beckons. I'll address your questions tomorrow. Chowsers ( :>)

*There are other countries that would happily take a large portion of Aus share of primary industry trade including the US.*

The US already steal our markets, using Govt subsidies. Now Examinator, stop the verbal masturbation and name me which country
has threatened trade sanctions, due to our asylum seeker policy.
You can't, its all hotair, straight our your bum :) As it happens,
I know a great deal about our agricultural markets, so you can't
feed me the crapola that others might gullibly believe.

*Simply put they weren't desperate enough at the time*

Ho ho ho Examinator, you have got to be kidding. Something like
20 million refugees in refugee camps and they are not desperate?

Humane starts with being fair, not with being a sucker for
people who seek a cushy lifestyle and are good at telling a story.

The first boat past the line is neither fair nor humane, nor safe,
its just appealing to the bleeding heart who can't think too well.

*The remoteness of Christmas Island means there is no transparency to its operations.*

Remote? Christmas Island is just off our coast, you can fly there
anytime you like, Aussies live there. Sheesh, if things are not
in downtown Melbourne, they must be remote. If Western Australia
would only secede from you lot, we'd be much better off, we really
would.