Beelzebub,
Ever tried to argue with an Anti globalist about immigration?
A multilateral anti immigration stance from all those opposed to the Globalist/Capitalist Hegemony would severely wound the beast,
Immigration is central to the globalist's model of permanent instability through ethnic conflict and scarcity.
Anti globalists, despite their pretensions invariably fall into one camp, Communism.
What is the goal of the globalists?
Communism, world government.
All "Leftists" and "Respectable" conservatives support unrestricted immigration because they support Globalism/Communism.
Commies to the Left, Commies to the right.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/offshore-processing-ruled-out-minister/story-fn7x8me2-1226129064024
The link in my last post did not work.
But is still viewable in yesterdays Australian.
If only both sides of politics acted as that link says.
This link above if true, I think it has been made so by the hight court, changes nothing.
Tony Abbott, Julia Gillard, the two leaders Australians do not want.
Both about tenth on the list in fact.
Must consider this.
Both without Abbott winning then calling and winning a Double Dissolution election can only act together.
This very day both must put politics aside and between both sides let their experts put together a new law.
If the will of majority, middle Australia, is to be circumvented by the hight court and refugee advocates, you can forget multi culturism from here on.
STOP the BOATS

Belly,
Could you please expand on "forget multiculturalism"?
I'm wondering where others see multiculturalism going in the 21st century, Third World migration into our countries, particularly of Muslims has killed it IMO.
BTW,a lot of legal migrants and second generation non White Australians HATE refugees. You could say that White Australians are intolerant of refugees but in smoko room discussions I've heard a lot of non Whites saying things like "Why don't they just sink a few boats?" and "These Parasites get everything and we got nothing when we came here".

> Immigration is central to the globalist's model of permanent instability through ethnic conflict and scarcity.

This says a very great deal that is dismissed by mainstream media as "conspiracy theory". The GFC WAS a conspiracy - deals done in secret by the wealthy and powerful - and we now have more than enough evidence that the corporate globalization agenda is one of world domination through social and economic coercion. The question is what can be done about it. Not only has the democratic process been fatally compromised, but the majority of sheeple still accept the deceptions of the globalists. On this basis, any effective action must violate democratic principles - i.e. it must be done against the will of the majority, even though it would ultimately redound to their benefit.

> Commies to the Left, Commies to the right.

Yes, the beauty of the scheme. Makes no difference for whom you vote. They've got their social psychology down pat, especially when it comes to "problem, reaction, solution". Ultimately, the awakened in each nation will need to find reasons and courage to act, and the self-discipline and coordination needed to define and implement an agenda. Problem is, when the likes of Bob Katter are your best bet, what chance is there of success?

> This very day both must put politics aside and between both sides let their experts put together a new law.

I doubt that the current crop of pollies has the intelligence and selflessness so to act in the best interests of the nation.

> I'm wondering where others see multiculturalism going in the 21st century, Third World migration into our countries, particularly of Muslims has killed it IMO.

The simple fact is that mixing an acid and an alkali doesn't yield a product with the properties of both - instead they destroy each other. Same with different human cultures - they cannot be amalgamated without destroying their values and benefits. Maybe a spot of sharia law applied to pollies would convince them of this. What's the penalty for lying - cut out their tongues?

Interesting posts on this thread. A time machine -
stepping back in time. A history
lesson learned at school of - the generations that
as kids were taught that this country's survival depended on
putting a wall between themselves and the "hordes" to the
North.

These were the generations -
who took for granted then, that
everyone up there wanted to come down here. I would have
thought that there'd be very few still left alive.
However it seems that some people have been taught well.
Many still are -
of the generation who can see boat people as the advance of
unimaginable numbers... "Let even a few arrive and,
God knows, Australia could end up looking like the people on
Christmas Island."

But who can blame people when
Australia's leaders continue to make political hay from
asylum seekers.

It's amazing that the High Court has
found the Malaysian Solution "illegal." Yet those same judges
found the Nauru Solution legal (back then). Now, they have
been forced to also find - Nauru "illegal."
What a conundrum!

And it turns out
that the "boats," did NOT stop coming under My Howard. The navy
turned them back - but nobody let the media know. (Big secret
at the time - wonder why?).

The boats will keep coming. And until we're willing to face our
fears, we'll continue to deal with them in a way that's
- an expensive national farce.

We can only hope now that both parties will join in trying
to solve this complex problem - and come up with a
solution that will be acceptable to all.

Lexi, sweet lady that you are, you continue to show a large naivety
about human behaviour.

Last time I checked, about a million people a year apply to come
and live in Australia, the vast majority are rejected and accept
that rejection. Yet we know that globally, people seek a better
life and are prepared to risk their lives to achieve that. The
easier it is to achieve, the more will take that decision. America
and Europe do in fact face hundreds of thousands of people a year,
all trying to get to Europe from places like Africa and Mexico.

If you think that Australia is somehow immune to this fundamental
of human behaviour, you continue to live in dreamland.

What Australia's laws should reflect, is what we are actually
prepared to do, in the real world.

Last time I checked, Australia is prepared to accept around 15'000
refugees a year. That is what our laws should reflect. If we
don't agree with the terms of the Geneva Convention as is stands,
then we should alter the terms by which we agree to abide by the
Convention and not pretend otherwise, which is where all the problems
arise.

According to the Geneva Convention, we would have to accept virtually
the whole Afghani Hazara population of a couple of million as refugees.
That is just from Afghanistan, let alone refugees from other
countries.

If you have no problem with accepting a couple of million Hazaras
and all the rest, then that is fine. If you don't, then if you
have a logical bone in your body, you should support changing the
law to what we actually accept as a country of citizens, who in the
end should decide who lives here.

The problem which we face is this contradiction in the law between
what we accept and what we have signed up to. It needs to be
clarified legally, so that we all know where we stand.