@Ludwig,

Time to summarise Ludwig, because I'm fairly sure you get my main points, even if you don't agree.

The first issue is how Howard handled the boat people post 2001. I gather you approve of what he did. I have purposefully avoided making a comment on it, because this issue has been done to death here with me being in the thick of flame wars that went on for weeks. However we both agree that Howard was successful - he did stop the boats.

The next issue is the Tampa affair. You initially argued Howard's handling of the Tampa affair was the reason the boats stopped. I disagreed, pointing out that quite apart from anything else the boats didn't stop (then). You seem to concede this point.

You also argued the major reason Howard staged the Tampa affair was to stop the boats. I again disagree. I thing it's pretty clear the Tampa affair was an election stunt and little more. What little more it was could have been achieved by Howard simply stating his revised policies on boat arrivals. I don't know whether you ended up conceding this point or not.

Next there is the disappointing and somewhat puzzling observation (at least to me), that despite my personal disgust at the Tampa affair, it was a success for Howard. It did get help him re-elected. On this we have always agreed.

This prompted my guess as to why the average voter isn't like me, and so didn't pillar Howard over his deliberate misleading of the electorate, breaking of maritime law, yada yada. For me these things are unforgivable. But they aren't "big picture" items. The big picture item in this case is Howard came out before the election and clearly said "if elected, I will stop the boats". And he did. And apparently your average Australian is willing to forgive him sacrificing a few sacred cows along the way. On this particular point I am not even sure if you understood what I was trying to say. But it doesn't matter. It was idle speculation on my part.

Dear RSTUART,
Well said, I totally agree with you. I also agree with Ludwig, in that this thread has done its' dash, I for one thought that this site was an opinion site, 'tis more like a battlefield at times. I thought that every one had the right to post their opinion without fear or favour.
But I reckon the thread was all about boat people, it is stunning to see that many Australians (all of whom were boat people, either in person or ancestry) are so against other people, even if they are from other cultures. The Chinese fitted in, as did Greeks, Italians Europeans, Indian, etc. etc. Is it a case that we persecute that which we are either afraid of, or don't understand.If there is such a thing as a 'finis' post, it would have to be shaggy dogs.....onya shaggydog.
Cheers,
Noisy

Noisy Scrub and Rstuart;

Good that you asked, and I will probably have the answer;

Simply, over the past 20 or so years there have been widespread reports and personal accounts of our present refugee intake (Muslims from the Middle East) causing numerous social problems, extremism, crime, hate-crime and threats to others; along with extreme cultural relativity and religious fanaticism to top it off- and these cases are most definitely true- although what ratio of our overall Middle East Muslim intake was never reported other than a bit of fluff speech that they're not).
To top it off, all these cases are within Australia, and identical stories in Europe match it).

Basically, in 2001 all Howard did was actually notice that a lot of people (if not the majority)
1- did NOT want to let any more of such people into the country
2- presumed that was exactly who was coming in via the boats these days
3- was too afraid to admit it, remembering what happened to Pauline Hanson
So he simply jumped on the vote- but took advantage of the shame-factor to capitalize himself as the only major anti-immigrant politician- secretly, "he understands your concerns- but the world doesn't so it will be our secret and I'll make an excuse to keep the shame off your back"- it became a form of manipulation (not helped by Labor trying to cash in on the remaining votes)- that effectively kept him in power;

The annoying part is, despite either stance on refugees has become perfectly acceptable to discuss- so many people are playing stupid games thinking they have to pretend a false case.

Don't get me wrong- even if someone is fleeing persecution, if that person were to go irrationally violent when another Danish cartoon finds its way into the papers- that person should not be let in at all.
The problem is, the assumption that everyone coming in is like that.

<< However we both agree that Howard was successful - he did stop the boats. >>

Yes rstuart.

<< You initially argued Howard's handling of the Tampa affair was the reason the boats stopped. >>

No, not at all. Howard’s whole approach to onshore asylum seeking stopped the boats. The Tampa was just the very first thing that happened in that process, I think, from memory. I thought I had clearly elucidated that in an earlier post.

<< I disagreed, pointing out that quite apart from anything else the boats didn't stop (then). You seem to concede this point. >>

I agreed that the boats certainly didn’t stop then (following the Tampa incident). But I had never suggested that they had.

Anyway, thanks for the summary. It has been good exchanging a few thoughts on this subject with you, again. Cheers.

The whole heat in this argument is generated because many, most ? think
that those arriving on boats are not really refugees fleeing risk of
life, but are those with enough money to obtain travel visas and
airline tickets and either apply for or already have passports.

Anyone in a country where they are under threat will not risk leaving
through official channels. These are the reasons why the queue jumpers
have only a very small number of refugees amongst them.

Put yourself in the place of someone wanted, do you think you would
go to the government dept and make a passport application ?
If you already had a passport would you go to the local International
airport ?

Does anyone know if Indonesia requires a visa to enter the country ?
If so they would need one before boarding the plane.
In any case they have transited several safe countries which means
that they were not at risk when they arrive in Australia.

The whole thing is a rort and should be declared to be so.

Dear Bazz
Good on you my friend, there are too many detractors re the boat people, even if the illegal attempts fail, they will get home, but in so doing they will be shot when they return.
It is alright for a lot of Australian fat cats to put Asylum Seekers down, what happened to the "Fair Go" tag that Aussies were synonymous for.
Cheers my friend,
noisy scrub bird.