TZ52HX

<< From my reading of the posts here it's pretty clear that those who oppose boat people are NOT doing it because of peoples' complexions.
>>

Very decent of you to say so, TZ52HX, but I'm afraid the asylum-seeker debate is undeniably fuelled by both racial and religious bigotry. As stated by Malcolm Fraser this morning, these asylum-seekers wouldn't be left stranded on the high seas if they'd been white Zimbabweans fleeing Mugabe's brutality. I don't like bringing up the race card anymore than you do, and I know it's likely to get ugly for me as a result, but I'm not going to pander to the redneck egos we're dealing with here.

I live in a predominantly white middle class area where my views on asylum seekers are very much in the minority. Currently, the whole community is pulling out all stops to prevent a family of white South Africans from being deported, for not meeting all the business criteria in their attempt to buy resettlement here. It did the same thing a few years back for a white South American family. The thrust of the argument is always the same - these are just the sort of people we want in Australia. As opposed, of course, to the sort we don't want.

In the six years I've lived in the rural-residential area I'm in now, there have been five white South African or Zimbabwean families amongst my neighbours. I don't begrudge them their good fortune, but I can't help wondering at the unfairness of it all. If you're white and have sufficient wealth, you can buy your way to resettlement in this country with ease, but if you're escaping from war torn Islamic countries you'll find it virtually impossible to gain protection here. And if you do somehow wangle it, you'll very likely have to fight discrimination the whole time you're here.

If you're still in any doubt, have a look at Shadow Minister's last post. He knows the sort of people Australians want. Sri Lankan Tamils apparently are worthy of our protection, but the Sudanese aren't.

Shadow Minister: "Unless you are being particularily dense, completely ignorant of what is happenning in the world, or deliberately obtuse"

Sadly Shadow all of the above have probably been true at times. And above and beyond that, I am just plain sceptical of anything I can't see for myself. I am just a stubborn old man, I guess. Thanks for taking to time to humour me.

Shadow Minister: "Have a look at this and tell us how nothing has changed,"

According to this one http://www.asrc.org.au/act_now/changes-to-mandatory-detention.html , the changes are:

- We don't put them on Nauru any more. We put them on excised territories like Christmas Island instead. I am no lawyer but I thought the reason for putting them on Nauru was to ensure our legal system and its remedies were not available to the asylum seekers. I also thought "excised territories" achieved the same thing.

- After initial processing, they are officially allowed to roam freely around the excised territory. This is of course different from Nauru, where they unofficially allowed to roam freely during the daytime.

- Access to funded migration advice, and an Ombudsman - but not our legal system.

These don't look like a major changes to me. The major effect is it should keep the money in Australia. To be fair to Labor, that is an achievement in itself.

Shadow Minister: "On top of that it scrapped the requirement for manditory detention or deportation of asylum seekers"

It appears the practical outcome of scrapping those two things is instead of holding the asylum seekers on Nauru, they are now held in an excised territory. To me the words you quote look like Labor spin championing a small change.

Shadow Minister: "The warnings were issued early this year that this was being used as s sales pitch by the people smugglers, evidently to great effect."

Perhaps they were. I am not sure what the Australian government can do about foreign criminals telling lies, except perhaps wait for the reality to strike home. The reality is regardless of the spin, not much has changed.

Yabby,

>>No RobP,not so. My argument is that the genuine asylum seekers that we know of, are in refugee camps.<<

That was a nice duck and weave to the comment of mine you were responding to. So, you would be OK with taking asylum seekers from refugee camps? At least that's a trade-off that I think is worthy of consideration. But, until such an initiative happens, I don't begrudge asylum seekers for trying to get here by other means.

All,

The thing about people coming here by boat is that they self-select in a number of ways. Firstly, they take a risk which shows they're having a go (this attitude was lauded John Elliot of all people on the Q&A program) and secondly, the fact they get through the Migration Department's screening process as well as the defence shield put up by many Australians means that the refugees who settle here are the most resourceful and hardy types of migrants.

I think the difference between "boat people" and "plane refugees" in the minds of Australians is most definitely psychological. There's an old mentality that the enemy will attack by sea, when in fact refugees are coming here in much greater numbers via less obvious means than by boat. Added to that, the economy is prospering so the economic sponsors of the policy are happy (you can tell because of the silence from that quarter to the debate). The downside is that the carrying capacity of Australia is being stretched.

Overall, what seems to be happening is that Australia is taking a "quota" of people from different parts of the world, but not too many from any one part, just like Noah's Ark, dare I say it. But if you are in the business of bringing in refugees, that is the best way to do it IMO.

Bronwyn,
You know I, and others, could bring up many examples of the opposite to what you claim to have experienced.

Like the english couple that were here for 26 years as 'illegals'(overstayers). They participated in the community and were small retailers and were well thought of but dispite community suport they were deported.

An illegal Lebanese who was convicted of drug dealing, won a right to stay because he had fathered a child while here. It was ruled that the child would be denied a father.

More recently an illegal Islander family was to be deported and the community and the school the daughter attended petitioned the Minister to allow the family to stay.

I refrain from drawing these instances up because I am sure the Department/Minister and the courts come across all sorts of cases where they have to rule on.

I think TZ is right in ruling out racism as a factor in many not wanting the illegal boat people to be here. Any analisis will reveal that they are liars and cheats who are trying to buy and bribe their way here.E.G. If they were persecuted, how come the got travel docs to leave or did they purchasse false papers? Why destroy their papers before getting to Aus?

The reason there is no objection to those that arrive here legally and then apply for asylum is that they are following legal process and are honest. They have docs that allow us to make fair and reasonable assesment of their application.

Bronwyn,

I'd agree with your last post more if it included two extra categories.

Those who are driven by blind Xenophobic fear and Opportunism.

The saddest sub groups of the above are those who refuse to inform them selves and are happy to wrap themselves in their own prejudices/bigotry as some sort of self aggrandizing regal robe.

In my neighbourhood we have a few recent imports who came here to "escape the colour conversion of the 60% importation of non natives of their homeland" but "they're not bigots".(guess where they're from?).
another family of imports isn't primarily colour religious bigoted they simply don't like everyone who isn't at awe with THEIR ancestry.

Perhaps the most pernicious are those who simply seek political advantage by comments like....
"This has important consequences for the government as it goes into negotiations with the coalition on ETS.

It was holding the big stick of double dissolution over the coalition's head, but that threat is beginning to look a little toothless now."
In context how hard is to see a variation of the oldie but goody "Yellow (Asian) Peril scare campaign" being used to justify undemocratic manipulation.

NB I don't care which party does this it is equally contemptible.

From this one can reasonably extrapolate that the conservative mentality still harbour racist (elitist) views.

and what low regard they have for the public i.e. it's bigoted,selfish and stupid (they'll choose stupid over bigoted and selfish) Lowest denominated.

Proving yet again the difference between rats and major political parties, there are some things rats just won't do.

'Never mind higher ideals or long-term thinking or policy' we have values (sic).I've yet to here a comprehensive alternative policy which is still the issue (question).

As I said earlier somewhere, if I was Turnbull I wouldn't try and form
a new policy now as the situation is very fluid.
Who knows how all this will settle out.
I think this is one of those time to do nothing.

Most of our discussions here fall into the same category.

Has anyone else noticed that this site has become slow ?