Examinator

"But I did float, that given the numbers are smallish, change the visa law to allow volunteers to work on farms (jobs we won't do) as Guest workers."

Like I said on the other thread this is not true. Life is not roses for everyone. I am not sure people realise how thin a thread many Australians are hanging on to. People can sponsor a refugee if they have the means but do not pack them off to compete against those that do not.

Banjo
I understand the lack of trust and also the stories those that say they support them do not help. Too many fibs and maybe if we simply got the truth all would be different. The other problem is that we do not trust the refugee claims process in Australia. This is central to the whole debate. If we had UNHCR processing the claims on mainland Australia here could be far more trust in the outcomes and offshore processing not such a huge deal for the government. Seems we are at war with ourselves over that.The acceptance rate compared to UNHCR is far too high giving added incentive for economic migrants to try their luck here. It also does need to be explained to Australians why. Seems everyone forgets Australians come first, it is a democracy and everyone works for us, not for their own little religions.

So left, right and centre we are fed lies, lies and more lies. From every side. Everyone an overnight expert on conditions in countries they have never stepped foot in or if they have, have judged with mass amount of enthocentricity. Along the way we have insulted just about every country in our region making us look egocentric, arrogant bullies and have played word games rather than factual.

I am also sick of hearing Ausralia is racist, xenophobic when that is dismissed by the attitudes toward immigration and the highest percentage in the western world. It is not acceptable for every country and also this one to be subject to so much abuse by self centred individuals.

Bronwyn: "is policy change that may have been in the pipeline, but which has been well and truly put on hold now,"

I don't know whether it is well and truly on hold (link?), but I see you are right in saying it isn't law. The relevant bill's home page is here: http://j.mp/3u1tN8 (only the bureaucrat could think the original URL is sane).

So we have this surge in asylum seekers, and the laws Howard put in place are unchanged. Hmmm.

examinator: "Well what do you think?"

I can't see much of a win either way. If you are trying to discourage them from coming, then Ken Parish's "The Indian Ocean Solution" is better. On the other hand, if you accept the inevitable resolution the current situation is most of the people on Christmas Island will be awarded permanent residency (just as happened in the Howard era), and think it is best to handle it in the most efficient way possible - then it is also a lousy idea. You are far better off just letting them find their own feet in Australia as soon as possible.

Now we're getting juvenile name calling and personal abuse written by Banjo and Shadow Minister. It only shows they've lost rational perspective on the issue. Just look at Banjo's last post, it speaks for itself. It reflects very badly on him.

examinator

<< Sorry to butt in ... >>

You're very welcome to 'butt in' anytime. I've wanted to respond to many of your comments here, but my posts are filling up all the time, just countering the usual lies these threads always attract. I read your post just now and was about to repond, when I noticed more of Banjo's drivel! Ho hum. :) He can rant about his fictitious 'illegals' all he wants, but he won't have the last word while I'm around. I've got to go now, but I'll get back to you.

Banjo

<< ... I thank him for giving me again the opportunity to expose the illegal boat people for the opportunistic, dishonest liars that they are. >>

Have you ever met any asylum-seekers or refugees? I've met many over the years and none of them are anything like what you're describing here.

<< If their stories of persecution were true, they wouldn't leave their wives and kids to the risks and squallor at home and cowardly slink off on their own half way round the world and hide here in relative luxery on our social security. >>

What are you suggesting? The men stay home and let their wives make the journey? As you've had explained to you many times before, most cannot afford the money or the increased risk level of a passage for the family, so they send one person. It makes sense that it's the fittest and strongest, as it's no trip for the faint-hearted. Besides, many of the single men you're ignorantly describing as cowards, have had their families killed, and often before their very eyes. You have absolutely NO idea of what you're talking about.

Yes, some do resort to desperate measures to prevent having their boats turned back to Indonesia. Again, if you truly understood the horror of what's happening there, and of the numbers of refugees warehoused - forgotten by the rest of the world - for years on end, or of the numbers being refouled back to danger and death, you'd soon start to understand their motivation.

Belly: "Turnbull today proved a point, he had no opinion on that boat in Indonesia."

Seesh. Belly, that comment is just unacceptable. It is an open and transparent attempt to return to the original topic as raised by TZ. Keep that up and you will tarnish the reputation of OLO for good.

Belly: "Humanity would be better served by removing the governments these people flee."

Like we are doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, you mean? Doing that generated the last two waves of asylum seekers.

There are no easy ways out of this one Belly. Either you accept them and perhaps end up "trying to empty the Sydney harbor with a jam jar", or you reject send them back home and live with your conscience. Saying you will fix the problem by being the white knight who sails in and overthrows the evil dictator is as much of a pipe dream as Howard's plan to give all the asylum seekers TPV's until some other country wanted them. Well, that is not quite true. You maybe believe the white knight caper will work. I don't think for a second Howard ever believed someone would take our unwanted refugees. It was just one of his politically expedient "white lies". Despite all the vitriol thrown here at Howard and now Rudd, the reality is the policy of both is the same - accept the refugees.

*They've been demonised by just a handful of bitter people on this site.*

TZ,flapping your wings by calling people names and
shouting (big caps), is not going to do it for you I am afraid.

Fact is that most Australians disagree with you, look at any poll.
You personally might dream of a world where everyone holds hands
and sings Kumbaya, but reality is a little different. Self interest
still drives human behaviour, ignore it at your peril.

Most Australians are not against Australia doing its share and taking
its share of refugees. We do that with our annual quota. That could
be increased a bit, its up to Australians as a whole to decide by how many, not me or you as individuals.

Australians want a fair system and an orderly system with upper
limits. Your proposal delivers neither, you refuse to define an
upper limit. So flap your wings all that you want, it won't do
you much good.

Everyone knows that the present system is being rorted. I've had
so called refugees from Afghanistan, admit that to me, when I've
asked a few questions. Not all Australians are as gullible as
you and Bronwyn, believing their every word. Some of us indeed are
a bit more skeptical. The discrepancy in UNHCR and Australian
processing also makes that clear.

The real problem however is that the UN 1951 Convention is a long
time out of date, it should be changed to reduce rorting. Other
laws, like our tax laws, are regularly updated as circumstances
change, not so in the case of the Convention, so it has loopholes
in it like Swiss cheese has holes.

At present, taxpayers are funding this rorting, poorer Australians
are missing out on funding which could help them, genuine refugees
are losing out too, yet you want more of it! Perhaps the Govt
should introduce a law, where you can bring in your very own asylum
seeker, as long as you foot the bill