So once again the poor, "hard-done by" Asylum Seekers
are rioting and destroying Commonwealth property at
the Villawood Detention Centre!

These troublemakers should be deported from this
country and the generosity of its people ASAP.

If we carried on like this in their country, we would
be shot on the spot or imprisoned for life!

This sort of activity from these people will continue
unabated, until they achieve their goal, which is to be
welcomed with open arms as they step off their scungy
fishing boats, and be allowed to live here forever off
the backs of the taxpayers, without themselves ever
paying a single cent in tax!

This problem is going to increase in seriousness until
something positive is done to deter and prevent this
increasing activity, which, regardless of what the
"bleeding heart" minority groups wail about, will
ultimately result in very traumatic times for the future
residents of this country.

We certainly do have a major problem already, when the
religious leaders of some of these fanatical sects can
encourage their followers to rebel against authority and
seek to instil their own religous beliefs into our own
citizens, without any reasonable reaction from our
Government to instigate action against them!

It is obvious now that Governments past and present have
been complicit in these acts of treachery against the
citizens of Australia!

With Anzac Day approaching, there must be many citizens
pondering the past sacrifice made by family and relatives
in their efforts to keep this country safe and free from
what is now occurring on a daily basis!

I knew such a thread would be started needed to be started.
Quite honestly do not wish to contribute to your thread crackup.
But must.
I strongly want every ofender on a plane today back to the place they come from.
I want to know why Neru is not suited ,is it just my party's ego.
Need as most do proof many are not just financial refugees.
Doubt the wisdom of letting pro refugee groups run our foreign policy's.
I however also want to know why it takes so long to process these folk, some surely should have been sent home a year ago.
Middle Australia is not heard not even considered on this issue, on line greens and refugee groups are seen in far bigger numbers than they exist in the community.
If Bowen is fair dinkum I want to see plane loads of returning refugees leave very soon and a review not months long but days in to how we stop the boats.

where there is clear criminal intent
deport foreigners back to their shores
immediatly..put them on a plane..and say go

enough of the do gooders
do the crime..go home you crim

laours hypocracy is pathetic
almost on par with howards dobbing in those children in bali

[had he the guts he would have busted them
before leaving..its clear govt knew...
and DELIBERATLY sent them to their deaths..[ok possable deaths]

either way
govt is not doing its job

its run by bigots and tax/levy..mad-woman..
its best the foreigners knew that...now

we got plenty of our own criminals..
[in govt..we dont need more..playing poli-tricks]
too many lobby make the spoiled children be childish

not smoking has made me angry
[if we want less angry taxation loving polititions..elect smoker's]

meanwhile put up with the nanny state
naughty children..get sent home

I don’t feel as strongly anti-asylum-seeker as you appear to, Crackcup, but yes I agree – we need to take a tough stance here and clamp right down on this sort of thing by quickly expelling the ring-leaders and major participants in these sorts of riotous activities.

We also very strongly need to just STOP THE BOATS!!

I was pleasantly surprised to hear this last night from Tanveer Ahmed, OLO author and former outspoken critic of offshore mandatory detention….

From the ABC 7.30 program:

CONOR DUFFY: Today the Opposition received some unlikely support from psychiatrist Tanveer Ahmed, who has worked with asylum seekers.

TANVEER AHMED, PSYCHIATRIST: I think some people, well-meaning people I think can be naive that there are enormous pull factors to come to Australia, and there is - and a good portion of the people that come here are illegitimate.

CONOR DUFFY: He was once opposed to the Pacific Solution, but has had a change of heart. He now believes the Howard Government's policy to send asylum seekers to Nauru limited people smugglers' ability to sell a product and is on balance more humane.

TANVEER AHMED: The less attractive we make this option, the more humane it is 'cause we have less people in detention, less people needing to be processed like this, which I think is ultimately humane.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2011/s3198458.htm

Err come on blokes. Australia is a soft touch. They know we
are a soft touch. To demonstrate that it is pretending to do
something, they might throw out a couple of people, but
fundamentally nothing will change.

Until somebody has the testicles to update the UN Convention,
along with our good nature, we will be taken for the suckers
that we are, all the way.

An answer yabby is on the very fingertips of this government IF they have the GUTS.
Send the worst offenders to unburnt detention centers leave match's around.
Australians are sick of politics and not addressing this issue,we should ignore the UN convention and deport as many as we can reset of shore and actually do what most want not minority bleeding hearts.

Australia is a soft touch.
Yabby,
Labor is a soft touch to the troublemakers & hangers-on. It is very tough on those who do it tough, at least that's what they say we should expect from the budget.

It's ironic that the asylum seekers who had their visa applications rejected decided to prove to the authorities that they made the right decision by resorting to violent vandalism.

As far as I'm concerned, all the rioters should be swiftly deported. I shouldn't have to be subjected to violent scumbags simply because the violent scumbags don't want to be subjected to violent scumbags back home;

Good stuff king Hazza notice how we got our point across without the defamation style individual uses?
I want an end to the boats,this may not be shared by you and others and believe most are not refugees but looking for a better life.
And too many are heading for self made ghettos here.
Funny thing about that more of us think that than not.

Wait a second. Here are you lot howling about the intakes and besmirching all asylum seekers by what has happened in Villawood yet isn't this the process at work? These people have had their applications REJECTED! That is why they are upset.

We are at war in these places and part of that responsibility I feel is to look after those genuinely seeking asylum from those conflicts.

It should be noted that the majority of Chinese who fly in and claim asylum are sent back.

If you are going to have a whinge about the riots why not have a crack at our farming out of detention centre management to the lowest bidder?

I teach English on a volunteer basis to the likes of those crackup claims don't pay a cent of tax. Rubbish mate. Extremely hard workers most keen to make a contribution.

The Labour Government created this mess and as with every other mess they have created the taxpayer will pay for the damage. In many ways every person who voted for this incompetent Government is to blame.

I want an end to the boats.
Belly,
So you do want an end to this mess ? Then why for crying out loud don't you start doing something positive like not voting Labor ? Pretty hypocritical if you ask me.
Also, please explain why stating a fact is defamatory ?

The rioters must be prosecuted and jailed and yes yabby the UN refugee provisions needs rewriting.

However we have to stop the boats from coming and the way to do that is not to give them what they seek. i.e. permanent residence visas that enable them to bring their families here by 747.

Doesn't really matter where they are processed, it is the PR visas that are the key. Stop that and the incentive to come is removed.

Don't expect this government to do that so it will continue as is. Another nail in the coffin for Labor.

"These people have had their applications REJECTED! That is why they are upset. "
Upset enough to start assaulting people and burning down buildings?
Sorry- as far as I'm concerned even against an asylum rejection coming from a dangerous country that's overkill and an incredibly poor example of character that we are supposed to be letting into our communities to supposedly not go apesh1t when they don't get their way once again.

In fact, one could indeed say that the people that do this kind of thing are little different from those they are fleeing- quick to resort to violence to get their way.

Let the right to safety start with those who aren't prone to violating it for others first.

Villawood's SERCO's manages to come in at 25% under what a government run detention facility costs and still make a profit. How? This is one way. A former employee on ABC news; "Serco basically got rid of the six-week course using staffing levels as an excuse and basically threw the staff onto the floor and expected experienced staff to train them as well as do their normal jobs."

When are we going to wake up to the fact that there are some things that need to be kept out of the hands of the private sector?

Privatise the Australian Wheat Board and you get hundreds of millions of dollars paid in kickbacks or use contractors to return the bodies of dead servicemen and they get switched.

If our government wishes to deprive people of their liberty then it need to have full control over every aspect of their detention.

Nearly two years is an insane amount of time to take to process a refugee claim. If you locked me away from my family for that period and only then rejected my claim I would be pretty bloody cranky as well.

Eddie McQuire agrees, http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/flames-blast-at-villawood-detention-centre-as-detainees-protest/story-fn7x8me2-1226042553065

As it is nearly ANZAC day I think we should reflect how some of us are prepared to send young men and women over to die in these places, supposedly to secure the future of the people, but when asked to make small sacrifices here to help those people fleeing that very country and all we get is whinging. Why shouldn't it be called cowardly?

Claims need to be processed far more quickly and we don't need cost cutting corporations in charge of our humanitarian responsibilities, especially when we are dealing with such emotionally charged circumstances.

Well said all posts csteele.

I saw a fb post by an OLO aboriginal person who put up the newspaper article about the riots and under it his own comment about how they should kick them all out.

I’d reckon his people been saying same thing a few generations now.

Nice to know Aussie has one firm tradition.

*These people have had their applications REJECTED! That is why they are upset.*

So they refuse to accept the Govt's decision and now burn down
buildings? Come on Csteele, if their claim was rejected, they
should have been on the next plane out of here, ages ago.

Csteel- obviously the answer is to:
-Nationalize the detention sector
-Withdraw our military from these countries and take a neutral foreign policy (as in my opinion they should not have been there to begin with)
-Ensure no cost-cutting operations are undertaken
-Process claims quickly and immediately deport those who fail to qualify before they get a chance to riot

Simple really-
I don't see the need to wind up some gigantic web connecting refugee applications to broader conservative policies or problems when it is clearly very easy to separate them.

Dear King Hazza,

You said; “I don't see the need to wind up some gigantic web connecting refugee applications to broader conservative policies or problems when it is clearly very easy to separate them.”

I will admit to being a little confused. Are you saying that actions, in which the conservative government in Australia decided to participate as part of the 'coalition of the willing', had no part to play in creating the refugee problem we are facing now?

Did you think that efforts by the coalition to exclude those attempting to seek sanctuary in Australia diminished in any manner the total number of refugees?

Or are you one of those who seem to think that somehow Labor's policies seem to create refugees out of thin air?

From the UNHCR; “The security situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated steadily since 2006, impeding state-building and reconstruction, and restricting UN access to half the country.”

“Insecurity, political instability and economic and social problems are likely to continue throughout 2011. The number of IDPs is likely to grow as a consequence of intensified military operations in the southern, western and south-eastern regions of the country.”

As to the running of our detention centres, until 1998 this was done by Australian Protective Services, a government agency. Two years into the Howard government term they outsourced the centres to Australasian Correctional Services (ACS), the Australian subsidiary of Wackenhut Corrections Corporation (WCC), to run the centres. It has been a schmozzle ever since.

I think I have every right to connect the latest problems to conservative policies when the facts speak for themselves. Certainly as much right as those who attempt to lay the blame for the latest riots at the feet of the Labor government whose policies I also think stink.

These people need to be treated humanely, with dignity and in a timely fashion whatever the outcome of their applications.

Let me put this issue in a different light. Rather than blame the government, the West, the UN, Bugs Bunny or even the refugees themselves, one must consider the origin and nature of these people.

Bluntly speaking, these criminals are mostly Muslims. By now people in the West should be aware that this means they will not accept our values and will certainly cause problems. Their values are not those of the West. If anybody doesn't understand this, they have not read the Quran, the hadith or even a newspaper these last few years. The only difference is that these refugees have caused problems immediately whereas usually they wait a few years to start preaching hate and making trouble.

These people come to the West and they bring their prophet and his vile ideology with them. Look what they are doing to Europe... Muslim immigration is nothing but a slow-motion, under-the-radar jihad.

Is this racist? No, but it is religionist, or culturalist or even ideologist. We should not be afraid to be honest about islam and what it does to a country. Look at Muslim societies and what they do, or how they treat non-Muslims (or even each other). When Muslims change their ways I will reconsider my position.

csteel is from the bleeding heart mob.
Those criminals on the roof tops throwing tiles,see them on the mobile phones.
Who do you think they spoke to?
I have seen the telephone box meetings of these folk, no illegal act is too low,no lie unworthy to make it look like we are wrong.
Schooling these criminals in how to act teaching them the symptoms to display.
I recommend a look at an editorial in todays Australian, and agree with it, refugee rights are a threat to our border control rights.
I do not want Muslim migration, most do not want it, most of these refugee groups are run by them not us.
Bigotry csteel? yes understanding my ALP cares more for folk like you than being re elected terrifies me.

<< Rather than blame the government, the West, the UN, Bugs Bunny or even the refugees themselves, one must consider the origin and nature of these people. >>

Kactuz, the blame sits 99% at the feet of one extraordinarily stupid K Rudd, and his extraordinarily dumb Labor cohorts that allowed him to weaken Howard’s border protection policy at a time when the whole asylum seeker issue was done and dusted and ancient history!

This was simply the most inept thing to ever have been done in the history of Australian politics!

0.99% of the blame lies with Gillard and her cohorts for not moving sharply to reverse this madness, and instead just stuffing around with it, at great expense, effectively entrenching the pull factors for ever-more arrivals!

And about 0.01% lies with the asylum seekers that are stirring up the actual melee.

We’d been through all of this before, just a few years earlier. A tight border-protection policy was so OBVIOUSLY necessary.

How on earth could KRudd have done such a thing? It was just SO obvious where it would lead.

I think that any racist, culturalist or religionist factors are extremely minor, all considered.

Dear Belly, we have discussed the nature and extent of your fears in the past and I don't intend a rehash now. 

I looked at the photos of detainees on the roof and saw a very distressed individual with his wrists bound. I was wondering if there had been a previous attempt at self harm. I also noticed a very wet roof and wondered if firehoses had been used on the demonstrators. I will admit to not seeing the supposedly nefarious use of the telephones worthy of my reflection.

Leaving that aside, and being the ALP man you are, I was wondering if you agree with Scott Morrison's comment; "Crimes were committed last night again in Villawood and the Australian people expect the government to take control of the detention network,"?

Should we get rid of the private operators of our detention centers whose failures through the years continue to mount?

Does the australian government have a right to sue SERCO for the costs of the damage if it found to have inadequately supervised the detainees under their control? Remember the title of this thread.

Or is your hobbyhorse overloaded at the moment?

You clearly are confused csteele, because you simply can't even think pragmatically about policy, but can only categorize it as "conservative" or "not conservative" and bundle them up as intertwined.
What exactly is to stop us from doing the above measures I listed?
In fact, you avoided even addressing such a combination.

Would a country that is politically/diplomatically neutral and has no military presence outside its own country's waters, that nationalized detention and simply deported rejected applicants be 'left' or 'right'?

Kindly try to answer this time;
Because the fact that either party got elected *because* it promised to stop the boats, and then participated in some wars nobody wanted- both of which the other party has largely retained- is completely irrelevant to whether or not we can solve each of the problems you listed separately- which, I just did.

Ludwig, surely you are aware that Labor will sell it's soul for a few votes.

Obviously some bargaining was done with the Muslim communities before the last couple of elections.

Having seen just how a desperate Gillard has no problem with getting lower than any snake to get her desires, you can bet she will never alienate any group that may increase her count by even a single vote.

As long as she believes she gains more votes by a policy, you can bet no judgement on its disastrous results would deter her from that policy. Of course, in public, she will mouth what ever it takes, but it's the "behind closed doors" policies that gain those few votes.

Until the welded on Labor voters change, Labor will continue to abuse us all by buying fringe element votes, no matter what damage it does to all of us.

Belly tells us he did in the NSW election. If all those who did, & there must have been many, scream it from the roof tops, their party may start to reform, to regain their faithful.

csteel while you and I could talk for hours I am repelled more by those who think like you than the red necks who post here.
Refugees is not just an Australian problem, Italy has had more in weeks than we get in three years.
But wait, it will get worse.
All most every one ignores the red necks, they however lack the verbal skills of the bleeding hearts.
ABC radio and TV lefty ALP greens sundry others have the ability to without fear or favor discard the views of the MAJORITY OF AUSTRALIANS.
We the majority are sickened to find those who set that boat on fire are residents in our country.
That rioters from the other fire had been taken to Villawood.
HATE us if you must we are not going to forever except minority's telling us in our country what to do.
You throw[ tactic that fires me up] that child like fear into every subject at me.
No I fear you more than any, but fear is not my prime mover I have concerns for my country do not want Muslim enclaves.
I do hope my party can understand, hear the voice of its roots, not coffee sipping dills, we want our right to say who come here.
Labor has a good minister and if Gillard gets out of the way he may stop the boats and return every rioter.
This is sure refugees world wide are only a seed now,within ten years the world will be confronted with numbers that make todays problem look very small.
My country must not be sacrificed to a United Nations belief we should become one world no matter the pain and suffering or conflict it brings.

Dear King Hazza,

I was indeed reacting more to your last point rather than those that went before. Perhaps red rags are better kept in the pocket on both sides.

Okay.

<<-Nationalize the detention sector>>

Unqualified agreement.

<<-Withdraw our military from these countries and take a neutral foreign policy (as in my opinion they should not have been there to begin with)>>

Agreed but with the qualifier if it deemed that by doing so we create more refugees then we need to reassess. We have helped scramble the egg, what are our responsibilities. Non-military assistance needs to be escalated. The film ‘Charlie Wilson’s War’ spoke to the importance of this.

<<-Ensure no cost-cutting operations are undertaken>>

Fully support.

<<-Process claims quickly and immediately deport those who fail to qualify before they get a chance to riot.>>

Yes but with the qualifier that a review process be in place and be robust and fair.

Are you happy that a maximum period of three months detention be stipulated?

Dear Belly,

Why are you bandying around terms like ‘rednecks’? You then say you are a bigot but I have never labelled you that. I think there are a number of Australian’s who have real concerns about issues regarding immigration and asylum seekers (often grouped but in many ways completely separate. They need a government that is prepared to address those concerns particularly in the media where fears tend to be fanned rather than eased.

I think we have been poorly served by both major parties since Howard started chasing Pauline and Beasley started chasing Howard over Tampa.

I mean for Howard’s Australia not to take a single refugee processed by the UNHCR office in Jakarta for three years gave lie to any notion of a queue to jump.

There is a lot I am proud about my country, we were one of the founding nations of the UN, We are a signatory to the refugee convention, we don’t torture, we don’t use cluster bombs, we have a reasonably fair workplace regime, we are prepared to assist other nations and we have a deep sense of a fair go.

There are some I would like to have back on my list like, we are not prone to discriminate against refugees, we take our international obligations seriously, we respect the dignity and humanity of others, especially those seeking our help.

I wish to continue standing tall as an Australian and I wish that for the rest of my countrymen and women.

You know there are times when I miss Howard’s ability to defuse a situation. It was a great skill of his when he wanted to use it. That type of leadership is sorely lacking right now.

csteele

Howard did not so much defuse a situation as side-step it. For example; children overboard, the "republic referendum" (only a single choice on offer), SIEV X (look over there, the boat is no longer in Australian waters), and I can't avoid mention of core and non-core promises - Howard held almost Faustian powers in his abilities to manipulate. He "never, ever" took responsibility and accountability for anything his government did at the detriment of the average person.

As for Labor, they have learned far too much from their Liberal predecessors - very little of it for the good of Australia, just propping up capitalism - in other words: business as usual.

csteele,

Howard's abiding talent as Prime Minister was bound up in his cunning. His ability to "defuse" a situation usually entailed either artful seduction of the electorate or blatant dog-whistling.

He was a manipulator extraordinaire, but his style was far from scrupulous or principled.
It's a shame that this is the type of conduct we've come to expect from our elected representatives.

Csteele- problem is the Afghan and Iraq wars would have still occurred no thanks to our involvement or absence due to America- as it is our participation in both is only a few hundred personnel.
And personally, I'd rather put an immediate stop to our involvement and start positive policy from scratch, than decide that I must pay penance to any Afghans who flee over an indefinite period into the future, at the expense of a safe domestic immigration policy.

So, to answer your question:
If an arrival is judged within the first day of contact to be no potential risk/ is socially compatible, they can simply be processed in the community.
Persons who appear to be religious fundamentalists or suspicious will be placed in detention and processed there- with the priority of processing on them to shorten their detention.
If they are rejected for either character grounds, security risks or any other reason that they would not be suitable to live among the Australian community, they instantly get sent home instead of remain in detention.

I suppose if the issue of failing to ascertain their full data over the three week period to determine if their applications are to be rejected or approved, they will be judged on character if they will be placed in community care or in detention while they wait, with the option to relocate back to their country of origin or a willing third-country always available.

In the world we mostly live in the very real one.Quite a long way from the bleeding hearts/greens numbers actually count.
Voters vote as they want to, and think as they want too.
Villawood ,hotels, screaming abusive funerals, rock throwers are not in fashion.
Fire mobile phones thrown over fences then used to prompt rioters are not.
ANY poll will show, unless taken in a phone box meeting of the lost blind bleeding hearts, will show less than 40% of us do not want to stop the riots and the boats.
CHARMED csteel but ROTFL at you from your extreme corner saying I am waving the wait for it, RED FLAG!
Time comes close that conservations will be forced to confront the fact this country is not able to grow endlessly that peak population will bring us trouble.

csteele:
You say that "you are proud" that this country was
a founding member of the UN, and that statement my
friend is precisely where you demonstrated your own
personal "sheeple" desire to be led by the nose by
the proverbial Pied Piper!

Could you tell me whenever you have been able to
select your very own choice of candidate to represent
you in Government?

Can you tell me when you have ever been asked for
your opinion on any subject by a sitting (lying)
member of Parliament?

Do you really believe that when you are voting to elect
a Government, you are really going to change things?

Do you really believe the swill that you are espousing
about the veracity of the United Nations?

Democracy my friend is a figment of the imagination,
a convenient tool utilized by politicians and big business
to hide the corruption and misdeeds that are occurring
on a daily basis, and to instil a false sense of security
into members of the community who sense that things are
getting a bit smelly in the areas of governance!

If you have such strong feelings about these "poor asylum
seekers" maybe you could remove some of the load from
the backs of the taxpayers and take a few of these people
home to live with you?

Watching the "poor" chappie with the bound wrists
squealing into his cell-phone, I immediately thought of
a sure-fire method of getting him off the roof...applying
the "Police Academy" movie methodology, as suggested by
"I can get your Kitty-Cat down from the tree, Madam!"

Dear Crackcup,

<<Could you tell me whenever you have been able to
select your very own choice of candidate to represent
you in Government?>>

As a former member of the Australian Democrats I took the opportunity over the time I was there to directly elect the candidates that would represent me both in the Senate and the House of Representatives. I think only one of them was a lawyer and none were union officials.


<<Can you tell me when you have ever been asked for
your opinion on any subject by a sitting (lying)
member of Parliament?>>

Before the last state and federal elections I was able to place my point of view and that of a community group I represented before a number of politicians, several whom directly sought that opinion.

<<Do you really believe that when you are voting to elect
a Government, you are really going to change things?>>

Yes or else I wouldn’t bother. Often during campaigns I have felt causes I have supported to be lost but it heartening to see how elections open doors and results many have been quite proud of have been achieved.

<<Do you really believe the swill that you are espousing
about the veracity of the United Nations?>>

Totally.

For all its faults the UN presents a great hope for mankind. People say it hasn’t solved the problem of war but just one example of the unity of purpose that can be achieved was the eradication of small pox. It is credited with saving more human beings last century than were lost in all the wars fought.

Alan Renouf wrote of Evatt’s work on behalf of Australia in the formation of the UN “It brought great credit to his country; more than any other national leader, Evatt made Australia known universally and made it known as a country of courage, responsibility and liberalism”.

As an Australian I am certainly proud of the institution and also of our role its formation. I am also proud of our involvement in the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 44 of the Refugee Convention:

"Denunciation

1. Any Contracting State may denounce this Convention at any time by a
notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations."

We cannot go on to accept and give all sorts of rights to so called refugees.Most of them have no intention to accept our values and will remain an economic and political burden to this country.
So simply let us denounce the refugee convention and stop to give rights to people who come to Australia without valid papers.

Last week I had the occasion to be in Orrong Road in the east of Melbourne. Coming down the street were quite a number of orthodox Jewish families. They have their own distinct culture and religion. It was with a real sense of pride that I contemplated the fact that my country was able to give one of the world's most persecuted people sanctuary from fear and abuse.

Melbourne's substantial Jewish population virtually doubled over the five years after the war. This flood of refugees was not greeted with enthusiasm by all at the time, particularly by the RSL whose newsletters ran some pretty vile cartoons making arguments like those in the post above. We as a country got past those concerns and moved on to become one of the countries advocating a humane approach to refugees of the world. 

It is a proud tradition and one we should be defending.

Some doubt exists in my mind these folk ever demanded Australians change our way of life.
Or that they exist in the numbers some do, maybe our total intake of boat people already out numbers them.
And if csteel thoughts ran this country we would soon be out numbered.
What of the fate of those in refugee camps all over the world, the ones who do not pay large sums to come here.
What is the difference between these boats and invasion?
And as the majority of this country does not want it to continue are we then to be told by the csteels of this world Democracy is only for when it agrees with them?

What Belly said;

Why do people keep pretending that aversion to Islamic fundamentalists is the latest generic xenophobia when the previous refugees (and about half of the current ones) in comparison were from civilized countries merely run by despots or suffering a war (China, Greece, Vietnam etc), have a state of mind, emotion, cultural conduct and morals that are perfectly compatible to our own, would not perceive people outside their community with some kind of gangsta-tribalistic hostility, and tend to have the same reaction to not getting their way as we do).

As opposed to tribalistic religious fanatics whose whole moral system ONLY revolves around maintaining and propagating their religion (but are otherwise incredibly lacking in basic moral acts like respecting others, and are far more self-entitled and demanding); and are prone to acts of pyromania when they don't get their way, and violent uprisings and acts of murder whenever their religion gets criticized.

Gee, nothing new here at all;

“ Posted by King Hazza, Sunday, 24 April 2011 11:11:11 AM”
Lots of one’s how cool is that.

“As opposed to tribalistic religious fanatics whose whole moral system ONLY revolves around maintaining and propagating their religion (but are otherwise incredibly lacking in basic moral acts like respecting others, and are far more self-entitled and demanding); and are prone to acts of pyromania when they don't get their way, and violent uprisings and acts of murder whenever their religion gets criticized.”

This seemed to be a good definition of all major religions. Some are much sneakier about it now though because they are “civilized”, lobby, wear suits, speakadagoodengish.

More importantly, is today chocolate day?

*We as a country got past those concerns and moved on to become one of the countries advocating a humane approach to refugees of the world*

Nope Csteele, we as a nation have become a nation of heart on
your sleeve suckers.

The UN 1951 Convention is now 60 years out of date. The world
has changed in that time and there are loopholes that anyone
with half a brain can jump through, if they are after a cushy
lifestyle.

Now imagine if we had not changed out tax laws and closed loopholes.
Other laws are regularly updated, to allow for changed cirumstances.

But not the UN 1951 Convention. It remains open to abuse and
because the bleeding hearts are shouting so loudly, nothing gets
changed and genuine refugees miss out, whilst those with money
and a fast mouth can jump through the loopholes as they please.

So suckers we are, for we are paying for the lot, whilst genuine
refugees without money behind them, rot in refugee camps around
the world.

You should be ashamed of yourself for being so naive.

Dear King Hazza,

Jewely’s highlighting the omen of 11.11.11 should hopefully give us pause. Rememberance, the opposite of forgetting.

The comparison I made with Jewish refugees after the war might make you uncomfortable but it in no way lessens its validity.

Jews at the time were bombing hotels and killing British servicemen in Palestine, a point that was made often in letters to the papers and the Prime Minister referring to the Jewish refugees as 'potential terrorists'.

P J Lynch, the president of the Australian Natives Association didn’t want Australia becoming a ‘dumping ground for European refuse now causing trouble in Palestine ... as Jews in Palestine were murdering and flogging British subjects’.

From a Liberal MP.
"The arrival of additional Jews is nothing less than the beginning of a national tragedy and a piece of the grossest deception of Parliament and the people by the Minister for Immigration."

He also made the point "we are not compelled to accept the unwanted of the world at the dictate of the United Nations or anyone else".

Suzanne Rutland in her journal article ‘Postwar Anti-Jewish Refugee Hysteria: A Case of Racial or Religious Bigotry?’ says “Jews were often depicted as godless people, lacking in moral principles and threatening to Christianity”

This lobbying did get the annual intake reduced but it was still proportionally far greater than the numbers we receive at the moment from Iraq and Afghanistan.

The concerns shown then had as much validity as those shown now. It is up to each of us to decide how much weight they deserve.

Dear King Hazza,

History lesson number two.

The Bonegilla migrant camp was set up in North-east Victoria to transit post war migrants. Although well away from major towns and cities it did gain attention after 13 newly arrived children died of malnutrition. An inquiry found inadequately staffing levels were a significant factor in their deaths and measure were taken to address the issue.

In 1952, after the suicides of three young men, there was major unrest by Italian and german immigrants. From the Sydney Morning Herald 19th July 1952;

"Two hundred armed troops and five armoured cars moved into the Bonegilla migrant camp today as 2000 Italian migrants threatened to riot and set fire to the camp."

Substantial Rioting occurred again in 1961 with migrants completely trashing the employment office and clashing with police.

Many were Jewish.

Should they have all been sent home?

Dear Yabby,
You wrote "You should be ashamed of yourself for being so naive." Naive? Hardly. Idealistic possibly but that is the prerogative as a member of a relatively new nation of migrants. We do strange things like give women the vote and give a Jew the position of vice-regal representative the first ever in the Empire. Speaks to our identity in many ways, despite the naysayers.

*Naive? Hardly. Idealistic possibly*

Nope Csteele, Naive it is. If people abuse the tax code, pay no
tax and jump through loopholes, taking advantage of the good nature
of our society, people want those loopholes closed and the situation
addressed. Its about what is fair and just. So that is what our
Govt does.

Yet for some reason this does not apply to the UN 1951 Convention.
None of you idealists are wanting it fairer, closing loopholes etc.

You just want us to blindly go along with what was signed 60 years ago,
but where circumstances have changed dramatically.

Sorry, but that is naive. People can hoodwink you in front of your
face and you don't even notice. Gullible might me another word
that suits. Wearing your heart on your sleeve is another.

Some of us realists, who live in the real world, have a problem
with that.

Jewely- you do realize I'm not a Christian? In fact, you could hardly call Australia a Christian society, considering that it has no Christian fundamentalists, a rapidly dwindling conservative Christian minority (with sadly too much input into our society) and an overwhelmingly secular Christian minority not much larger than an Atheist minority. If a Christian tried to immigrate showing only fundamentalist or fanatical anti-secular viewpoints I would want that person deported also- refugee or not.

Csteele- dodged my point again to continue your derail? that's too bad.
The Jewish/Wahabi analogy does not make me 'uncomfortable'- it is completely false and demonstrates you did not even read my post, but simply assumed it would be about something you WANTED it to be.
The funny part is I actually left out any political issues- everything I listed were domestic social problems experienced by political neutral countries that let Wahabis take up residence.
And to answer your question about the fire- YES, they should have been sent home.
Quite simple.
(Except of course, for someone who can't understand a world more complicated than "left wing stuff" and "right wing stuff"- things like judging individual situations without "left" and "right" is just too hard).

If a lone violent gang member were being chased by members of a rival violent gang, and he needed to hide in my house- and in his desperation started to get violent and smash my fence and set fire to my letterbox to get my attention- guess what? I sure as hell wouldn't let him in!
The fact that he would probably be killed by his pursuers is tempered by the fact that he himself is a danger to myself and others.
Violent people deserve each other, while non-violent people deserve better than have their lives put to risk by the likes of them- and when weighing up the rights of a violent person's safety from other violent people against the safety of a non-violent person from somebody like him- guess whose rights I'd pick?

Dear King Hazza,

Wahhabists?

Gave you the benefit of the doubt last time mate but I'm not feeling that way inclined now.

Is this a favoured debating trick of yours? Post in an ambiguous manner then when your opponent trips down one path you slap him around the head for showing a 'lack of understanding'. Then move the goal posts.

You talked about “prone to acts of pyromania” then qualified in your latest post;

“The funny part is I actually left out any political issues- everything I listed were domestic social problems experienced by political neutral countries that let Wahabis take up residence.”

Not having it. Do us all a favour and plain speak.

You then try to paint all asylum seekers as 'Wahhabists'. You know as well as I do you have no idea whether those who lit the fires at Villawood or are presently staging rooftop protests are Wahhabists or even Islamic fundamentalists of any ilk.

My analogy was between Jewish refugees, some of whom were Orthodox, and Muslim refugees some of whom may well hold more firmly to the tenets of Islam than others. It was perfectly legitimate.

Your 'gang member' analogy is a crock as well. If you were attempting to remove someone seeking sanctuary who was already in your house to face a probable death at the hands of a rival gang then and they then became remonstrative their actions would be judged sympathetically. In my society if you succeeded in removing them and they were killed I would hope you were charged with accessory to murder.

Dear Yabby,

Well perhaps you had better enlighten us on just how you think the Convention should be altered. What are the 'loopholes' you keep referring to?

Will they deny us our Victor Changs, our Sir Gustav Nossels, or a some of our Bonegilla residents like Les Murray and Dr Karl Kruszeniski, or some of our young Australian's of the year like Tan Le and Khoa Do?

Love you to spell them out.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/un-convention-misunderstood-and-its-not-working/story-e6frg6zo-1225889968841

Csteele, Sheridan makes some valid points in his article.

But there is much more then that. You only need to claim to fear
persecution under the Convention. The onus is on the authorities
to prove that you are lying. Given that information from the
third world is mostly unavailable, they can claim just about
anything.

I am Hazara, I fear Pashtuns. I am Tamil, they are after me.
Never mind that millions of Hazaras and Tamils live in their
respective countries. Find out from your mates what ticks
the Australian boxes and you have a visa!

At the moment you have thousands of Tunisians, fleeing to Italy.
As they are not locked up on arrival, they head for France. It will
take years and years for each case to be processed, the system is
overwhelmed. People are not silly, they know this, meantime they
can live in Europe with impunity and vanish within the EU.

When people are rejected, sometimes they are dragged kicking and
screaming onto chartered aircraft, at huge expense and with a great
deal of drama. Govts avoid all this by letting many stay, as in
Britain. Claimants know this. They know a sucker when they
see a sucker.

Litigation can take years and years, meaning all the while, they
cannot be rejected.

The 1951 Convention has become a great way for economic migrants
to enter the Western world and live the cushy lifestyle.

Our bleeding hearts are sadly too naive to see it for what it is.

Dear Yabby,

Sheridan may well make some valid points in his article but I found it hard to get past his first paragraph.

“ACCORDING to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, there are 16 million refugees in the world today. According to Julian Burnside, Malcolm Fraser and the other faux compassionate advocates of soft policies for illegal immigrants, any of those 16 million who get to Australia's waters should be automatically offered permanent residence in Australia, with immediate access to welfare and all the other benefits Australia offers.”

We are entitled to ask why in the one sentence he moves us from 'refugees' to 'illegal immigrants'? Talk about wearing ones agenda on ones sleeve. And why claim Burnside and Frazer of having fake compassion when Burnside at least has put Hazari Afghan Refugees up in his own home for many years?

He also seems to imply that immediate access to welfare etc is contingent on permanent residence. It is not. It is a requirement under Article 24 of the Convention.

I think any changes should be measured against how they would have impacted on the Jews of Europe after WWII and neither you nor Greg Sheridan has offered up any proposals that can be thus tested.

No Csteele there is no trickery, just you perceiving there is.

You say people are hostile to "these" refugees because of the same reasons White Australia was to non-white refugees.
I am telling you, people are only hostile to taking in fundamentalist Muslims and people from tribalistic societies for entirely different and more substantiated reasons;
YOU were the one tarring with the same brush, my dear. Remember?
So that's the first load of rubbish of yours out of the way.

Secondly- I have said countless times- if immigration went my way, we would simply screen all arrivals to see if they ARE religious fanatics, prone to violence, emotionally unstable or any other mental/emotional state that would make them a danger or cause problems to a local community- and if they ARE, they are sent back pronto; if not, they are placed in the community and have their claims processed here.
Thus both points you keep indulging in are rendered MOOT.

As these arrivals under arrest have been judged unworthy- and then went to prove moreso by resorting to rioting and burning- they qualify for a ticket back.

Which part don't you understand (this time)?

That sad part about you is that because YOU cannot separate issues, you assume nobody else can either.

*Sheridan may well make some valid points in his article*

Well that was the point of linking it, the problems in Europe,
the acceptance by Blair and others that things arn't working.
The UN Convention needs updating, that is the issue.
But nitpick about other things if you like.

*I think any changes should be measured against how they would have impacted on the Jews of Europe after WWII*

Hitler did in fact gas 6 million Jews. Meantime millions of Hazaras
and Tamils live in their respective countries. Just because one
section of a country might not be safe, does not mean that all of
it is.

Its not my job to rewrite and Convention and it should not be.
What I am highlighting is that its not happening due to our bleeding
hearts like yourself, which is the issue here.

No wonder there is so much outrage in the general Australian
community about this. Most thinking people are well aware of
the rorts going on, from the burning of documents onwards.
Like me, they hate being taken for a sucker, which as a nation
are being seen as.

I have not got very good news for my fellow posters.
I heard our minister announce [sorry ducked out to turn Habib of]
He was cracking down on those protesters who commit any crime.
Even using temporary visas.
Well maybe.
Until it is proven other wise my government is hearing the csteels of this country ,not the Belly's/latched on ALP.
JUST AS IN NSW IT MAY BACK FIRE.
I know some issues are not being heard.
International laws make it hard to return some who destroy papers.
Some country's will not have them back.
Some LIKE IRAN would kill them.
So it is not just putting them on a boat, the 16 million refugees world wide will be greatly increased in the next ten years,our standard of living will drop, we now are reforming welfare yet some who have come here will always ,forever be on welfare.
Csteel has the skills Labor has the wish to be loved by her kind, but how many will Be sent home after these riots, how many criminals are still here.
I doubt we heard a plan today to just listen to AUSTRALIANS
We have the power to dump UN rules, demand no boat people but greatly increase refugee in takes from people who do not use criminals to come here.

Folks:
We have heard from many a learned individual
that Australia can support a gross population
of 17 million people. At the present time we are
carrying far in excess of 21 million people!

We are already suffering from gross fiscal
imbalance. We now have a "monstrous"
Budget deficit that is already going to cost
each member of our society dearly, as the
manipulators and financial wizards try to
"eventually" balance the books.

Regardless of what UN Conventions have been
signed in the past, by persons purportedly
representing the peoples of Australia, we can
no longer afford the luxury espoused by the
bleeding heart club by having these Asylum
Seekers forced upon us!

These uninvited opportunists are not only
getting a foot in the door, but are kicking
the door down in our faces in their violent
efforts to compel us to accept them. If they
love the use of violence to get the message
across, then why aren`t they joining the fight
in their own countries to obtain change in
their system!

Anyone old enough to remember what Enoch Powell
in England stated about the projected future of
Britain under the then influx of "foreigners",
must now see that he was right and Britain is now
under threat from Asylum Seekers, Refugees and
Illegal Immigrants, with the authorities unable
to prevent the tidal wave of humanity.....I do
NOT want to see a repeat of that in Australia!

The people should demand that the United Nations
Denunciation clause be invoked now,so that we can
put the brakes on before it is too late!

Dear King Hazza,

Yeh right. Whatever.

Dear Yabby,

Come on mate have a crack. The first thing you could do is read the thing.

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

The current definition of a refugee in Article 1 is “"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."

The Organisation of African Unity in their regional treaty have used; “Any person compelled to leave his/her country owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality"

While the South American version is: "Persons who flee their countries because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalised violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order."

Which would you prefer?

Although there is an implicit acceptance of responsibility for refugees from countries that a nation wages war with I would like to see it codified.

If a future 'Coalition of the Willing' wanted to overthrow a particular government then handling a proportionally higher number of the refugees that are produced as a result should be on their balance sheet when deciding if the exercise is worth it.

Dear Crackcup,

Raising the ghost of Enoch Powell? Hells bells.

Then again I suppose he did enlist as an Australian. Plus he was rather prescient in predicting "I see growing on the horizon the greater peril than Germany or Japan ever were... our terrible enemy, America....".

Dear Belly,

Skills for what

Cteele, I did in fact read it all some time ago. But what matters
more is how the courts interpret it.

I would not attempt to rewrite the tax code, for there are people
who know every loophole of it, and how things are legally
interpreted. That is exactly whey even lawyers specialise.

The same applies with the Geneva Convention. Once we have the
political will in place, the rest would fall into place, there
are enough experts in the field.

My own solution is far more simple. Take all refugees from refugee
camps, for they would not be there in the first place, if they
were not genuine.

Thought so Csteele- it's ok to avoid answering my points because they're too hard for you to understand.

What is sad is that you are incapable of even entertaining an idea of a country picking and choosing policy that suits itself independently of other policies.

Either that, or you actually can't give us a good reason why our stance is wrong without:
1- mentioning random irrelevant entities like the Liberals or USA (I think it's because you still believe that everyone who supports stricter refugee policies is some kind of neocon who, on principle, supports the USA, Israel, the Liberal Party, the Christian Church etc etc and somehow supporting these makes our immigration stance wrong too (by the way, I'm neutral towards Israel and I don't support the other three things at all- sorry)
2- Pretending these ARE relevant (ignoring that like plenty of other neutral Western countries, were we to not play a part- or even oppose either war- the refugees would still be trying to enter Australia anyway).