Well well, we now have our first 'sustainable' boat-people policy, off to East Timor.

Now, of course, this is not Nauru, or Christmas Island, so it cannot be anything like the Pacific Solution or the excised Oz solution.

No, this is NEW and DIFFERENT, this is the sustainable reffo policy.

Just the other month Ramos Horta was moaning about foreign aid being no good from Oz, now he's got his Christmas (Island) wish come true, and all our foreign aid will be targetted in a brand new jail system:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/politics/australian-aid-all-over-the-place-says-east-timor-president-jose-ramos-horta/story-e6frgczf-1225883177399

Who'd-a-thought Rudd was speaking the truth when he warned about 'going right' under Julia?

I never thought I'd say this but.. JULIA GILLARD IS BRILLIANT :)

I still won't vote for your *witchunt against the Churches* (UN)Equal opportunism Commissars but on the assylum seeker thing.. woopeee...

she done good!

BUT..there is a better and simpler and less costly solution....

NO.. don't turn the boats back...

//Turning the boats back, she says, is a shallow slogan that amounts to nonsense. And so it is. She makes no bones about Tony Abbott's claim that this is what he would do. The asylum seekers would simply sabotage their boats and Australian authorities would have to rescue them,//

err..sure..IF..they come.

ARREST AND INCARCERATE the crews and captains...PUBlicize it far and wide in Indonesia.. show photo's of depressed Indonesian crews languishing in our Jails (doing hard labor)

Let the left go crazy and propogandize about "INhuman treatment" which will save us the advertizing bill ourselves....

and watch the flow of boats dry up.... I'd give it 6 months at the outside.

Heck..I'll even translate it for them.

Untuk Perhatian Orang Indonesia.

JANGANLAH terdapat membawa pemohon2 keselamatan dari luar negri ke Australia..HARAM!. KeTahuilah ini, jika anda terdapat menolong atau memandu kapal yang membawa pemohon2 keselatamatan tersebut, anda akan DIPENJARA SELAMA SEPULOH TAHUN sekurangnya. Sebelum anda melibatkan diri dalam keharaman ini, ingatlah keluargra mu yang bergantung padamu.

Dear TBC,

I watched Julia Gillard on the news this evening
and I must admit, I was impressed.

She behaved like a Leader - and she made perfect
sense. A regional processing centre, developing
a regional protection framework. Telling us that
her government's policy goal was clear. "To wreck
the people smuggling trade by removing the
incentive for boats to leave their ports of origin
in the first place."

Telling us that "Labors policy was to remove
profitability of the trade and the danger of the
voyage..."

I know that it's only early days yet, and there is
much still to be done - but at last - there's
light at the end of the tunnel. And that's a fact
that should unite us all!

<< I never thought I'd say this but.. JULIA GILLARD IS BRILLIANT :) >>

I don’t know if I’d go quite that far ALGOREisBOAZ.

But yeah, she done good!

Foxy...I have no desire to carry the flag for the Abbott forces, but really, did you listen at all?

The speech is empty of anything beyond dogwhistles and rhetoric.

Why on Earth place something like that in East Timor, a dogeared nation trying to start life.

Besides, I've just listened to Lateline's interview with Ramos-Horta, and there is no 'agreement' at this stage whatsoever....and will not be before the election I'd imagine, with the pace of progress on such issues with so many to be consulted.

Gillard sounds like Howard, tempered only by PR people and some modest hint of hindsight, to avoid the mean excesses of Howard, and to keep appealing to those who are swayed by having a female PM, and being glad to see the backside of Rudd still.

Still, we can all see what we wish to, and if you see 'improvement', so be it.

I wonder if the supposed 50k of 'illegals' who fly in each year will be going to East Timor, or just the 'scary' ones who come in boats?

Meanwhile, look out for the next phase of settling refugees in RARA lands, with little or no English, poor job prospects, and no state support.... or was that the other half of the miners 'deal', to get them to take cheap refugee labour in exchange for a pushover negotiation on the tax?

<< I know that it's only early days yet, and there is much still to be done - but at last - there's light at the end of the tunnel. And that's a fact that should unite us all! >>

Agreed Foxy.

Isn’t it amazing how different a party’s policy positions can be with a new leader! There seems to be more difference already between the Rudd and Gillard governments than there has been between Labor and Liberal governments for many years!

Ludwig, and Foxy, do please indulge me with a check list of 'difference'.

TBC.. you wonder about Julia's posturing ? :)

You note there is 'no agreement yet' ?

Have you watched Yes Minister so long and yet you do not know Political spin when you see it ? John 14:9 "Political" Bible.

Ludwig.. same goes 4 u u ragamuffin :)

Brilliance is not always in the 'actual'..but the postured.

Unforutnately it presupposes a dumb gullible electorate.

Foxy..

ur toooo easy :) "This should unite us"....cough splutter choke..hemorrhage..coronary- err you actually believe this political stuff ?

Your pupils are not a bit dilated right now are they ?

Advantages for E Timor seem to me that it would bring quite a lot of intellectual and technical expertise to the country.

Blue Cross, this is my checklist of differences between the Rudd and Gillard governments.

1. Restored harmony between the government and the people who really run the country: the big miners, with a bit of an increase in wealth distribution from our primary resources to the ordinary people, but with the obscene profits for a few people and companies still well and truly intact.

2. Much tighter border protection.

That’s it, so far!

Even with these two policy shifts, the Gillard government is arguably more different to the Rudd government than Liberal or Labor governments have been to each other for many years, except of course the failed Rudd government which stood out like a sore thumb as being quite different to previous Lib or Lab govts.

<< Advantages for E Timor seem to me that it would bring quite a lot of intellectual and technical expertise to the country. >>

RichbuggerALGORE, I agree. Asylum seeker processing in Timor Leste certainly does present that struggling country with a significant potential economic/intellectual/technical windfall. And it would help cement a tight relationship between them and Oz... without offending Indonesia.

It sounds like a nice little win win situation.

Does the government really think the East Timorese will welcome
significant numbers of moslems in their country ?

Have you all forgotten the slaughter that took place there not so
long ago ?

Ludwig, thanks for your sterling efforts there.

Hardly anything to boast about is it?

Your first point shows there is no difference between the ALP and Coalition. The bulk of Australians will not benefit much from the 'new tax', and as you said, the miners have got off pretty well Scot free.

As for 'tightening border security'... hardly, some dogwhistling on boats, and not a peek on the fly-ins and overstayers at all.

The differences I see are, sad to say, not much more than the end of Rudd (welcomed) and a female PM (and? The actual benefit beyond the emotional is lost to me at this point).

Oh yes, and the inclusion of an undefined phrase that means nothing into the title of a mass-populater supporter as now being a 'sustainable' mass populater.

I wonder what Foxy sees is 'so' different?

I always thought that the term "Pacific solution" had extremely ominous overtones - but, it seems, most Australians had no problem bandying it about.
Poor Nauru, which has been reduced to pock-marked landscape after much of it's substance was removed in the form of phosphate - the majority exported to Australia. With the depletion of the mineral and much bad investment advice, the people of Nauru experienced gross impoverishment.
Has anyone commenting here done any research into the benefits for the people of Nauru from the "intellectual and technical expertise" experienced by them while being promoted to Australia's defacto gaoler of refugees. I suspect you'll find that it was few and far between.
East Timor can expect much of the same. Our paternalistic largesse paints a very thin veneer over reality.
Before Gillard came to power, I felt rather disillusioned as to the real value of my vote. I had decided for my own entertainment to pen a clever limerick with which to enhance my house of reps voting slip. I decided, however, to hold fire on any rhyming creations to see which way Julia blew - disappointingly I think the limerick idea is back on the agenda

Dear TBC,

As I mentioned in my post I am
trying to see the light at the end of the
tunnel. This is not about "differences,"
between political parties or previous
administrations. The PM is calling for
a debate on the issues involved.
She's only just begun and has confirmed
that this will take time to sort out.

A regional protection
framework that would involve countries in our
region to me did sound like a step in the
right direction.
As I stated earlier - it is only early days.
Nothing is set in concrete - and much
work obviously has yet to be done.

However, let's take this one step at a time and
see what happens.

Dear AGIR,

Stick with the topic of the thread.
Whether my eyes are dilated,
crosse-eyed, or multi-coloured, to match my
killer-cheek bones, and luxurious mane of hair, has nothing
to do with the topic at hand.

You guys are all aware this is a theory and couldn't POSSIBLY happen before any election, right?.

Ludwig and foxy,
Wanna buy some shares in a harbour bridge?

Jooolea shudda been an ice skater. She spins like a top.

Dear Banjo,

No, but I wouldn't mind shares in
BHP (bringing oil to America),
or Rio Tinto.

As for Julia, well as I said - let's
wait and see. I may be naive, but
I'm a glass half-full kind of person.
And I prefer to think that as I said
before, decency will out. Although,
I must admit that my husband disagrees
with me rather strongly.

Dear Foxy,

You seem as if you are a fair and reasonable person - always ready to give someone the benefit of opportunity to prove their argument.
I find, however, that when I hear hastily coined poli-speak titles such as "Regional Processing Centre" and "Regional Protection Framework", my antennas start to twitch. Translated into plain English, Julia Gillard is saying that it is perfectly ethical to take advantage of our impoverished smaller neighbours (a la Pacific Solution) by offering financial inducements so that we may dump our problem on their shores.

Foxy, perhaps your wily Reynard should be listened to, methinks.

We all 'pray' for decency here, even if we disagree on what that might be, and I even heard Malcolm Fraser quizzed on his views of Gillards 'I can't believe it's not a Pacific Solution' solution,oops, sorry, sustainable solution, but I am pretty sure she is all piss and wind, as the commonfolk from Altona/South Australia might say.

Tell me, is your glass a pot or a schooner, a pint, or a litre?

I look into my mini-sized political sherry glass, and it's hard to tell the level, so little does it hold.

<< Hardly anything to boast about is it? >>

No, Gillard’s achievements to date are not anything to boast about, Blue Cross. She has just started and she's only done what she needed to do.

<< Your first point shows there is no difference between the ALP and Coalition. >>

That’s about right. There is not much difference between the Libs’ no mining tax position and Gillard’s greatly watered down policy.

The Libs and Labs have a got a very similar position on border protection which, being a very rare thing in Australian politics these days, means that they are both on the right track.

<< As for 'tightening border security'... hardly, some dogwhistling on boats, and not a peek on the fly-ins and overstayers at all. >>

Not dog-whistling, sensible policy. But yes I agree that action now needs to be taken with similar conviction on other aspects of the infringement of our immigration policies; a la visa overstayers, etc.

<< the inclusion of an undefined phrase that means nothing into the title of a mass-populater supporter as now being a 'sustainable' mass populater. >>

We’ll just have to wait and see if the word ‘sustainable’, as in the change from the minister for population to the minister for sustainable population, actually means anything or whether record-high immigration and the pandering to rapid continuous growth will continue under Gillard.

But even the fact that she acknowledges issues of sustainability and problems with population growth has set her miles ahead of any other PM in Australia’s entire history! (and light-years ahead of Rudd).

Give Gillard a go, Blue Cross. Don’t be so down on her so early in the piece.

Here's an interesting little visual about "boat people" I got on Twitter.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/8301/anxiety.jpg

I see Nauru being mentioned by Poirot, and insists that Nauru's woes are the fault of Australia. Not so at all, according to the 4 corners show about Nauru a few years back. The country's finance minister, was a rock and roll roadie recruited by the Prime minister of Nauru, while having a few bets in a Melbourne TAB agency. That the country went from being one of the more wealthy ones (thanks to exporting phosphate to Australia), to a very poor country (might have something to do with their finance minister and hopelessly corrupt Government) speaks volumes. Any mining activity you choose to name has an end-point where the resource is either completely exhausted or costs more to dig it up than it is worth, any successful mining company will put effort into the next project before the last one is unprofitable. Being independent means when a country blows it like Nauru did, you're on your own.

<< Has anyone commenting here done any research into the benefits for the people of Nauru from the "intellectual and technical expertise" experienced by them while being promoted to Australia's defacto gaoler of refugees. >>

Not me Poirot.

But Nauru has been willing to again host asylum seekers. So they must have benefitted very nicely out of the previous deal: http://www.smh.com.au/national/rundown-nauru-likes-coalition-plan-20100531-wrgl.html

Of less relevance, but considerable interest: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2004/s1206183.htm

It seems that PM Gillard neglected to actually talk to the East Timor government prior to announcing what seems to be an increasingly vague "solution" to a problem that doesn't really exist. I predict that it'll never happen.

As for...

<< Advantages for E Timor seem to me that it would bring quite a lot of intellectual and technical expertise to the country >>

...what Poirot said. Nauru doesn't seem to have benefited enormously from all the "intellectual and technical expertise" that Howard's so-called "Pacific solution" brought to that country.

PatTheBogan,
I certainly do not put "all" the blame on Australia for Nauru's plight. No doubt, the reason's for Nauru's impoverishment are many and varied - and much of it the result of unprincipled financial management.
However, the ecological devastation wrought upon the island is real and tragic, and a good example of an unsustainable industry bringing a country to it's knees. Much of Nauru is described as a "moonscape" today.

By the way, I found this link - interesting rum down of the refugees on Nauru:
http://www.noborder.org/iom/display.php?id=157

The idea is a good one do not write it off yet if not ET it will happen some other place.
It will cost a lot but voters want an end to these numbers.
Let those who say no consider the people sitting in camps being betrayed by these who seem to be able to buy a ticket on such boats

Hi STG... the interesting thing about that graphic from twitter is this.

Although the numbers are comparatively small.. you could reverse them and make the large area 'relative crime/social disruption' caused by those same people.. and it would approach the truth.

I rang the Santiago Task force yesterday to enquire about the "Lebanese Crime family" (Chaouks) in Melbourne, where I saw footage of a group of them trying to do the 'tribal' thing of confronting police during a raid. Fortunately the police have learned from the works of Tim Priest and the South Western Sydney experience and anticipated a swarm of 'family and associates' creeping out of the nearby houses, and had plenty of backup.

The thing which upset me, was when one of the scum in a hoody made an "I'm gonna cut your throats" sign in full view of the camera's to the police. They said that 'person' (I use the term loosly) is now being interviewed about "threats to kill")

They said

-"about half the family is in jail now".
-They all come from the same village in Lebanon.

These are 'refugees'

So the impact ...can be quite disproportionate to their numbers.

We know this is factual from the Sydney and now the Melbourne experience.. but it's cropping up in Adelaide and Perth..not just from the Lebanese, but Somalis and others.

As the police related..this is nothing like 'normal criminality' it is way above that.

If someone from that same village in Lebanon applied for a visa to come here.. it should be refused purely on 'likelihood of family/tribal criminal association'

StG, that little graphic is quite striking. But of course it is oversimplistic and hence quite misleading when it comes to the impact of onshore asylum seekers.

However, it is true that onshore asylum seeking is just one small part of our refugee / border-protection / immigration issue.

There is currently a very cynical view of Gillard’s clamp-down on border-protection which is held by a considerable portion of the population, as has been much-expressed on OLO. So she really does need to now prove her genuineness by expanding the policy and dealing with the other main facet of asylum-seeking – fly-in visa overstayers. If she did that before the election, it would go a long way towards alleviating fears that she is just acting cynically in the lead-up to an election.

If she went a step further and advocated a larger refugee intake (while considerably reducing our total immigration intake) and an increased international aid input into refugee issues, with a progressive shift of expenditure that is now being outlayed on onshore asylum seekers going towards our offshore refugee programs as the onshore issue eases, it would also help secure her credibility substantially.

It does look a bit odd at the moment that she has strongly addressed just one small part of the border-protection / immigration / refugee issue. But there is a clear path that she needs to follow in order to address this, IMHO.

Julia Gillard seems to me to be either very naive in the way that
diplomacy works or is a very slow learner.
She has been in politics for years and in parliament for six or nine
years and has not understood anything about how to negotiate with a
foreign government.
She rang, not the head of government of Timor, one night and early
the next morning blows it all over the media that we want to open a
Timor Sea solution in East Timor !

We need to suspend all immigration for a period while we take stock on
what we have done to the country, and what we want the country to be.

Have we in fact with the numbers that are now coming instigated an
invasion, not a designed immigration scheme ?

Very quickly, Australia is fading away.

Belly, it is unfair to single you out here, you know you are not alone, as do I and many others, but you wrote this... "Let those who say no consider the people sitting in camps being betrayed by these who seem to be able to buy a ticket on such boats".

As I understand it, the Blue Collars and Blue Bloods are both scared of a few boats turning up here, escaping the war the Australia helps to promote in their nation-state.

But neither the Blue Collars nor the Blue Bloods seem to notice the very few journalists, and maybe even a politician who have ventured into the 'other' area of 'illegals', as the BBs all like to call them, the fly-in-with-a-ticket crew, whose numbers, so I read somewhere, come to about 50k a year.

Now... where is your 'camp' waiting line?

Why do you focus on what the media tell you to focus on?

Why do you accept the commonsense views without question?

I really think we need to have explained to all of us what the warlords of the West are doing in Afghanistan to assist people who fall foul of both the 'enemy' and the puppet government of Afghanistan, to prevent people feeling they have to leave there and come here, clearly a 'safe haven' and a welcoming nation-state for them to come to, because there we are, in their country, fighting a war to 'help' them (and not to secure a strategic spot of land and its mineral wealth).

Belly, could there be a link between our presence in Afghanistan, and the flood of their citizens to here?

As for Sri Lanka, well, the entire world is clearly not interested in either the war that went on there, or in calling the government to account afterwards, so do we as a nation have some global citizen role to play in bringing the government of another sovereign state to account, before blaming its reluctant citizens who see a 'paradise' over the horizon?

Ludwig,
Quote. "So she really does need to now prove her genuineness by expanding the policy and dealing with the other main facet of asylum-seeking – fly-in visa overstayers. If she did that before the election, it would go a long way towards alleviating fears that she is just acting cynically in the lead-up to an election".

Dear-o-dear. You are the most experienced poster on OLO so I never imagined that you would need explanation about the alleged 50,000 overstayers spin. It has been told many, many times.

Firstly the 50,000 figure is NOT an annual figure but a static figure. In other words there are about 50,000 overstayers here at any given time. Most are tourists who have decided to stay a bit longer and then leave on their own volition and are replaced by other overstayers. They cost us nothing and are still spending money and adding to our economy. Not that many either when you consider the number of tourists we get.

I have forgotten the actual figures but it is all there on the DIAC website.

Now there is a few that arrive with valid visa and apply for asylum and since they are legal entrants we do not detain them while they are being processed. Their acceptance rate is low (about 20% I think) and if refused they have to leave. We can deport them, if necessary, because we have their bona fide details. The 50,000 a year figure is simply incorrect and put around by those supporting the 'illegals' as a strawman.

There is another much smaller group that arrive,by air, without a valid visa and they are promptly sent back to their departure point at the airlines expense.

They major difference with the boat arrivals is that they destroy they identifacion and their countries will not take them back unless we can positively identify them, so we allow them in. That is why they are prepared to pay smugglers far more than the cost to fly here.

Blue Cross, Australia should certainly be having more of an input into refugee issues in Afghanistan and Sri Lanka through our formal offshore refugee programs or by way of assistance with UN efforts.

But we would then need to assess the veracity of claims for asylum in those countries compared to many others.

I think that we should be bringing in about 25 000 of the most needy people as part of our immigration program per annum while helping many others to rebuild their lives in their home countries where possible. But I can’t see that many Afghanis or Sri Lankans would make the cut.

There effectively IS a queue or a waiting line. If some Afghanis or Sri Lankans are found to be amongst the most needy of refugees, then they should be positioned in the line according to need, with regular reassessments of priorities, as the factors affecting their plight are likely to prone to change.

In other words, we need to assist and assess them on the same basis as all the others that we should be assisting, within our formal refugee and immigration program…while striving to close down onshore asylum seeking entirely.

I don’t think Australia should be burdened with extra responsibility for refugeeism in Afghanistan as the result of our participation in the war there. We are afterall trying to do the right thing for the Afghani people in dealing with the Taliban as well as addressing the terrorism issue. We should be taking up more responsibility than we have to date, but not to the extent of it being disproportionately greater than in other refugee trouble-spots.

Blue Cross wrote;
>Belly, could there be a link between our presence in Afghanistan, and
>the flood of their citizens to here?

Actually, maybe you are right.
If the Taliban took over perhaps most of the population would decamp.
Certainly most of the women would want to leave.

It might well explain Pakistan's attitude to the Taliban.
All the more reason to pull up the drawbridge and have a think about it
while we rest the population from the impact, both financial and social,
of high immigration rates.

There is no way the earth can support the present population in the
standard of living we all so desire.
It seems impossible that people will solve this dilemma ourselves and
as someone said "Nature Bats Last !"

enter stage 'left' (?) a comment that adds to this debate from the ABC Drum page

"The demonisation of "people smugglers" is another example of the degradation of political language in the asylum seeker debate, which George Orwell so memorably described as "the defence of the indefensible." It is amusing to see politicians from both major parties, who are ostensibly committed to free trade, condemn impoverished Indonesian fishermen for providing a service to those who so desperately desire it. Given that the vast majority of those arriving by boat are in fact genuine refugees fleeing brutality and persecution, Indonesian people-smugglers have most in common with Oskar Schindler or US abolitionists in the pre-Civil War underground railroad. But because the asylum seeker debate demands scapegoats, "people smugglers" provide an appropriate target for febrile phrases such as Kevin Rudd's "absolute scum of the earth".

Read the lot here: http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2947371.htm

Belly,
Quote
"The idea is a good one do not write it off yet if not ET it will happen some other place.
It will cost a lot but voters want an end to these numbers.
Let those who say no consider the people sitting in camps being betrayed by these who seem to be able to buy a ticket on such boats"

Gee, What a change of heart you have!

I vividly recall you slamming the previous government for its inhumane treatment of the 'illegals' Now you support off shore processing.

So what was more humane and compassionate about Rudd's 'meet and greet' policy and his encouragement for these people to undertake a hazardous voyage, in which about 160 have drowned since he took office.

Now youe say Gillard's idea is a good one, that is completly hypocriticical to your former stance on off shore processing.

You may recall that the Nauru facility was closed down and Christmas Island was quite adewquate under the previous governments policy. It is only because of the encouragement to come is there a need now to find new facilities. I also recall this mob saying they would not bring them to the mainland, what a joke.

Remember the previous government did actually stop the boats from coming.

Banjo, thanks for the low-down on other forms of asylum-seeking and immigration law infringement. But I’m not quite sure what your issue is with my recent comments. Perhaps you are getting my comments mixed up with someone else’s?

I’ve never touted the 50 000 figure. I have never said that we have 50 000 visa overstayers per annum, let alone that we have 50 000 every year in a cumulative manner.

The issue is that we have a clear law that is being grossly violated in an ongoing manner. It is an infringement of our immigration policy just as surely as onshore asylum seeking is. It needs to be tightened up.

If it is indeed not costing us anything and is actually bringing us net economic benefits, then the law needs to be changed to allow it to continue, legally.

Whatever the approach, Gillard should deal with it, head-on and quickly. As I said previously, this would surely help alleviate the high degree of cynicism in the community that exists due to her action on only one small part of our immigration and asylum-seeking issue.

Maybe she should crack right down on visa overstayers and progressively replace them with up to 50 000 of the most needy refugees, in a one-off special program!?

What do you think we should do about visa overstayers Banjo?

Ludwig,
I do not think that anything needs to be done even though they are technically breaking our law. As I said they cost us nothing and in fact add to the economy.

To do anything substancial about it we would need to become a 'police state' with nightly checks for overstayers at hotels and other accomodation. I cannot imagine our citizens standing for that.

An alternastive would be for hefty fines put on at departure points which again would not go down well, especially with the tourist industry.

So does it really matter if, after seeing the Barrier Reef, some tourists decide to stay a little longer and visit Ayers Rock, or Barrosa Valley. We do after all know who they are and where they are from. If they violate the visa terms our first option is to kick them out, as it is.

Sorry if you are aware of the overstayers spin, it seemed to me that you thought it was a major problem and was urgently in need of attention.

The long term overstayers are a bit more of a worry as they are vulnerable to unscrupulous landlords and employers and need to obtain false cards and tax file numbers to blend in. That certainly makes that group criminals. Only extra resourses could counteract that.

Ludwig;
Visa overstayers should be detectable by the taxation dept if
they could enforce more and better auditing of employer payrolls.
Any overstayer has to either be involved in crime or work for an
employer who pays under the lap.
Tying bank accounts to tax file numbers must have made life difficult
for the overstayers as it means they cannot bank their money.
Even sending it out of the country is difficult.
The Islamic funds transmission system should be banned although might
be difficult to enforce.

I would think that the taxation dept would be the best detector that
the immigration dept could have.

"Well well, we now have our first 'sustainable' boat-people policy, off to East Timor."

Then again, maybe it is not so much "sustainable", more a "non-starter"...

Alternatively, we could let all the boat people in and give them jobs, installing roofing insulation for Peter Garrett.....

that should solve a few problems.....

More stuff-ups from "Bungle Central"

The Australia Institutes paper on dogwhistling, as practised by John Howard and Julia Gillard, to name but a few of our politicians today:
https://www.tai.org.au/index.php?q=node/19&pubid=427&act=display

Assylum seekers.. immigration by stealth (through 'education') has but one goal

Dilute and destroy any sense of homogenous Aussie Identity.

Labor openly admitted this in the UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html

The Latino driven SEIU in the states is openly barracking for it (services union)....

This is the most blatant and clear declaration of political WAR against Americans you could ever get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7K0itgQt0&feature=related

This man wants to make illegals legal for the primary purpose of expanding the 'progressive' agenda, which translated into open borders, income redistrubution, and marxist economics.

That 'foreigners' are political capital for a particular side of politics is not something that can even be argued.. it is a given.

The only question remaining is.. IF they ever did become the deciding voice for the American State... what would the do with that power ?
I suspect one item high on the agenda would be to change the language from English to Spanish.

It does not matter where the 'illegals' are processed, either to them or to us. Be it Timor, Nauru, Baxter or anywhere else, the boats will still keep coming unless we stop giving them what they want.

Permanent residency in Aus is what they seek so if we remove the permanent resident visa and all that goes with it, the boats will stop coming. The TPVs that the previous government had was the key. Give only TPVs and the smugglers will go out of business.

But then, after encouraging the 'illegals' to come, why would they believe what this government says. This government has created the current problem.

Banjo...as I said to David Hodgett over the weekend...(He is our local member)

David.. I'll make it short and simple.

1/ Incarcerate the crews of these boats for 10 yrs
2/ Spread the word in Indoensia.. far, wide and LOUD.

I doubt too many would come then.

Well it seems that labors spin masters will be busy.
Since julia said that east timor would be the solution but now the timor parliament has rejected the idea of labors.

If i was treated as labor has treated timor i would tell her where to go as well.

Stuart ulrich
Independent for Charlton