Did I hear right?

I heard today that our Julia is opening the gates, & let the boat people loose on the streets.

Like a vindictive kid, if you don't get what you want throw a tantrum. No Malaysian solution, so cop this you lot, would seem to be the case.

It is in keeping with the breed. When the councils resisted giving Beattie their water, that he wanted for Brisbane, he threw a tantrum, & landed us with a water commission, which is proving very expensive to close down, & a multi billion bill for a desalination plant & a water grid, both of which have proved useless.

Hope the folk of Sydney & Melbourne enjoy the influx, if this is true.

No one can accuse me of liking Julia, but this is the first time that I read something positive about her (of course it may or may not be true).

Why discriminate against humans? Most countries have land borders, so animals can freely cross from one country to the next. In Australia, it's only fish and birds, but still, why should humans have less rights than birds? One may want to block people out of certain cities, but what right has anyone to block people out of a whole continent?

I only hope that Australians get similar rights to bring in their family and friends from overseas to visit them without having to beg Julia as if she was doing us a favour.

I find my self bogged, deep mud stops my progress.
My post is between a conservative and is it green?
If Australia today, knew the costs of refugees , planes boats over stayers, we would be horrified.
If we knew how much we would not except it.
We know,or should,most are weary of them arriving.
Most are weary of the self imposed separatism some bring with them.
And yes hide your heads,but with Onslo in Norway, haveing 28% recent arrivals in their Schools, most understand what our country will look like in 100 years.
Few care to know but Tony Abbott does,cares only about his wish to be Prime Minister,at any cost.
Only his preparedness to betray us all, so he may keep boat people as a weapon, stops us stopping the boats.
A vote, just allowing Coalitions stated policy's off shore processing, would take a toy from Tony.
History, soon to be written, will highlight the fact Tony Abbott in mind not body has been a truly little man ,one with no concern for his party country just a self interested NO to anything.

Yuyutsu,

Birds and animals don't have to pay for infrastructure or for public education and other trappings of the welfare state. They don't have the problems of different languages and incompatible cultures. If they outbreed their resources or damage their environment, nature takes care of it.

Australia is a relatively decent place to live because our ancestors and predecessors put a lot of work and money into it and because we are putting work and money into keeping it that way. We didn't simply luck out. This link gives some idea of the infrastructure costs per person for every new arrival

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/39930.html

Very few would be able to pay up front.

The EU can afford open borders between member states because they are at relatively similar levels of development, so departures and arrivals tend to iron out, but a lot of the pressure for immigration here is coming from countries that are in the Malthusian trap or have very recently left it. In such a country, any improvements to carrying capacity are simply translated into more babies until the customary level of misery is restored. That is what happened with the benefits of the Haber-Bosch process and the Green Revolution, and would happen with the smaller benefit of open borders to Australia. The economic historian Gregory Clark has pointed out in "A Farewell to Alms" that the palace at Versailles and other extravangances of the French aristocracy really cost the peasants nothing, because without them, there would have simply been more hungry, miserable peasants.

I find the idea of open borders just as offensive as you would find the idea of giving random strangers open access to your house, car, and all that is in them.

The part that goes against me is the boat people are que jumping and not waiting their turn. They have to be held long enough to make sure they are not carrying a dose of leprosy or taburculosis.
Who knows what might happen within parliament now.

Belly,
Comon, be fair dinkum! Rudd and his side kick Gillard got us into this mess. They simply never had the guts to say they made a mistake, when it was obvious.

Hey, I don't particularly like Abbott, but you cannot blame him for this. Labor has now formed a coalition with the Greens and independants and have failed to get support from their partners to try and stop the boats.

They have capitulated to the Greens again and again, so next thing we will be flying the illegals in from Indonesia or Malayasia. This will happen after the next boat dissaster.

Thank you, Divergence. Great post.

I particularly liked this gem:
“ a lot of the pressure for immigration here is coming from countries that are in the Malthusian trap or have very recently left it. In such a country, any improvements to carrying capacity are simply translated into more babies until the customary level of misery is restored”

Every MP should be made to write it one hundred times, each day, before parliament opens.

Now, if I can just get you around to seeing that much of the noise around AGW is being generated by the same cast and crew that brought us "open borders". And much of the damage arising from the developed worlds overpopulation/bad governance is being repackage as "climate damage" in pursuit of the same ends -- you'll be truly on the ball.

PS: It's hard to take Yuyutsu’s comment seriously. After all, he seems well and truly appreciative of the importance of borders when it comes to the middle east --see here
1) “My only concern is that my family in Israel are safe and well. For that, Israel must be able to defend itself both externally …and internally” [Yuyutsu, Thursday, 21 July 2011 1:47:01]
2) “Forget about the Palestinian morons and their absurd demands. A UN vote against* them, recognizing a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders will do 3 good things…: [by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 7 July 2011 12:14:30 PM]

Correction: "developed worlds" --should read DEVELOPING worlds

Banjo it is you not me who needs to get fair dinkum.
Yes Rudd did the wrong thing, it was demanded of him.
If you mustered the wrong sheep would you muster the right ones or sit bleating.
We need an answer for this problem, not yesterdays.
Abbott swears Malaysia will not work.
He could, if he is so sure pass Labors bill, ensuring Nehru is able to be used.
Then blame Labor for its failure.
Truth is Doctor NO fears it will.
You support a man who has no intention of being honest.

Belly you are letting your bias's show a little too strongly.

Both Gillard and Abbott are playing politics on this one. Gillard was unwilling to consider Naru primarily as far as I can see because it is Abbott's preferred option. I have little doubt that Abbott's motivations were equally on the politics and not on the needs of Australia or that of those fleeing a crisis at home.

Don't much like either option but am a strong fan of the idea of temporary protection visa's. Ideally we'd shelter people until the situation at home settles then help them get home unless they've shown us some good reasons why having them stay here is in everyone's interest during their stay.

Locking up people who we will probably later allow to stay seems to be the worst kind of nonsense, get them really annoyed with Australia then let them stay here.

I'd like to see the bulk of refugee's returned home if and when the crisis in their homeland settles, returned home with some skill's which might help their homeland improve.

R0bert

The trouble with your idea of temporary visas, is they will not show when their visa expires, like thousands of others at the moment. Employers are all to willing to pay peanuts and keep illegals as workers. How do you suggest that can be fixed.

579 that is a problem, the same problem that we have with those who arrive by plane then don't leave when we expect them to (a far greater number from what I've read).

No perfect answers, strong penalties when people are caught (including deportation if relevant and possible for those sheltering people who cheat the system).

It's never going to be a perfect system, like it of not we are a desirable destination for many, the only way we seem to be able to change that is to behave in a manner that few of us would be proud of regardless of how necessary people may consider it. From what I've read most who make it here via the boat's qualify for residency after processing so just being harder on arrivals sits badly.

We need to find a way that makes Australia less interesting as a long term destination for those who don't really want to be part of this country but which allows us to treat those who are suffering with compassion and decency. It's a tough balance which I don't think any of the major's (including the green's) are trying to achieve at the moment.

It's well past time for a major rethink on what we are doing, TPV's may not be the answer but I've yet to see any other options that look better.

R0bert

Divergence,

First let me clarify that I do not propose any more rights for unwanted immigrants than the rights of birds (or kangaroos) or to treat them any better. I would not welcome them into the state of Australia, its welfare, infrastructure or education - just into the continent.

Just as I don't let strangers into my home, I wouldn't allow unwanted immigrants into Australian cities and towns - but stopping them from living out in the boundless planes of the outback, grabbing a whole continent to ourselves, is a gross imbalance and injustice.

This is where interests and morality clash, along with the two distinct meanings of the word "good".

What is "good" for our interests is clear - we don't want them. Period.

Yet deep in our hearts we know that it is not good to deny others access to our homes: not just humans - animals too.

Of course it's inconvenient, it hurts to allow others into our space, it may even kill us. We may not even be able to afford it in the sense that we will not survive, but all that is only from the point-of-view of the first meaning of "good", that which serves one's interests.

Now I don't claim to be a saint. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak, so I am susceptible as anybody else to following my interests even at the expense of others. But I do call spade a spade - and weakness a weakness.

SPQR, you can now understand my comments about Israel in this light. I don't consider national-borders as moral, but when it comes to my family I don't care and am willing to suspend morality to save their life. OTOH, I do not support expanding and grabbing other people's land, which I can afford because my family lives happily and comfortably within the 1967 borders.

A reasonable compromise between the two meanings of "good", is to protect the land and resources that we use, but not forcibly hold onto the parts of the continent that we don't actually use - that's piggery.

Belly,
You know and I know that this stupid government should have re-installed the previous programme as soon as it was realised the new softer approach was enticing illegals. It is still not too late, they could open Nauru and not give permanent residence EVER to those who arrive without papers. That means no family reunion and very limited social services.

The only thing stopping this government from doing this is pig headedness and spite. Because the illegals now believe our government is weak, it will take even tougher measures to stop the boats. I would ship those without papers to Nauru and make them wait 10 years for processing with no prospect of any family reunion.

I do not care who stops the illegals from coming as long as they are stopped. To simply give up and open the gates is utter stupidity.

You and I agree that we are being conned by these illegals, taken for a ride. We are held in contempt by them and the cost is enormous.

RObert that is really pretty easy, it just requires 2 simple laws, to go with your temporary protection visas.
The resistance to temporary visas is of course, no family reunion for people on those.

1/- No welfare until any any immigrant, on any visa has accumulated 5 years of tax returns.

2/- No family reunion until 10 years of tax returns.

I saw some figures recently showing over 60% of these people are still on welfare 5 years after arrival, that's the attraction. I doubt the con worker lady is unaware of this, & as we all know, she'll do anything to buy a vote.

Yuytusu,
You say."Just as I don't let strangers into my home, I wouldn't allow unwanted immigrants into Australian cities and towns - but stopping them from living out in the boundless planes of the outback, grabbing a whole continent to ourselves, is a gross imbalance and injustice."

So you are quite happy to let anyone who wants to, come to my place, on the boundless plains, and make me share my home with them. As long as you in the city don't have to share. Why not? Can't I come and camp in your backyard. I'll only use your back verandah when it is wet and maybe inside when cold. I'll just connect to your power and water that you pay for.

Your concepts are simply stupid, Australia IS our home. The same as Israel is Home for the Israelis. Have you no concept of the size of the countries these illegals come from, they have 'boundless space' to share.

Dear Banjo,

First the terminology: why would you call people "illegal" but not birds? Why would you put them in jail if they come and not, say, bears and monkeys (if we had a land-border)? These are people whom you don't want to have, so I simply called them "unwanted immigrants".

No, I am very unhappy to let anyone who wants to enter your place: whatever space you need for your family out there in the outback, you own it, that's yours, nobody is to take it or use it without your permission... But there is still so much more. Now what do you do if your property is infested with dingos for example? then do the same with those unwanted immigrants - it's your property!

The Australian government is obsessed with economics and only thinks of immigration in terms of profit and loss. That's wrong:

When I came to Australia I saw myself as refugee. Though I wouldn't pass any official UN criteria, I was escaping conscription among other things that I will not mention here. Many of our friends were desperate to migrate as well and believed at the time that they would die otherwise, but they were refused. They were "illegal" while I could come because I had the "right" profession etc. and received the maximum points of what the Australian government was interested in. Now who cared about profession or economics then? that was the last thing on my mind, but that was the deal. As far as I was concerned, I needed to find a safe place under my feet in another continent, I was not coming for the welfare, infrastructure, education or anything of the sort. I was quite happy to start my new life on my own, in the outback if necessary or in a rubbish tip. Things turned out differently, more civilized than I expected and I did (and continue to) contribute to Australia much more than it contributes to me, but I am happy, at least I am not in the army - and I never asked Australia for more.

Last post in a thread feeding the view this government is evil.
Sorry to intrude on the ranting.
Truth must be worth some thing.
Gillard Government has been informed by the same legal people as advised Howard/will advise Abbott.
Any attempt to send people to Nehru will be challenged as a result of recent hight court victory and will see it stopped.
To use Nehru we must first rebuild the place, time/dollars then get Abbott's signature on a document that says we are not wasting money.
I know, not think,Abbott knows too,he only has to give the ok and the boats will stop.
I know he will, be forced by his own party out of office soon.
Enjoy the slanders but remember, do please, you have been conned.

Hasbeen, without having details thought through thoroughly I'd do it a bit differently but with I suspect the same goals.

I suspect in practical terms we'd need to give some kind of support for a period, that should be contingent on all family mambers taking part in study while they are not working and with some proviso's to ensure that does not become a rort.

I was thinking some more about this earlier. Maybe a bit like a neighbours house burning down.

If at all possible I'd offer them somewhere to stay till they get things sorted out, I'd try and help them get sorted with clothes and other necessities to get going again. I would not feel obliged to let them move into my home permanently. After they'd had a little time to get over the trauma I'd expect them to pull their weight around the home. If I caught they stealing stuff in my place then they would be out regardless of how difficult that was for them. If they insisted on continuing to smoke in bed then they'd also be out quickly regardless of how culturally important that was to them.

R0bert

Gillard Government has been informed by the same legal people as advised Howard/will advise Abbott.
Belly,
probably so but because Howard was way smarter than his two successors he obviously didn't take too much notice of those advisors hence the better outcome under his leadership.

Yuyutsu,

There is no more frontier or "boundless plains" that are worth having. Most of Australia is desert, about as hospitable to settlement as the Sahara. Only about 6% of Australia is arable. Unlike Europe or North America, soils have not been renewed by glaciation or mountain building, with the exception of a few areas over old volcanic hotspots. See

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

Back in 1994, before all the concern about Peak Oil, climate change, etc., the Australian Academy of Sciences suggested 23 million as a safe upper limit for Australia's population given the resource situation.

Australia's primary obligation is to its own citizens, just like Israel's.

I fully agree, Divergence, that Australia's primary obligation is to its own citizens.

What I find an untoward anomaly, is that [non-citizen] humans are treated worse than [non-citizen] animals.

Usually, unless it creates a specific problem for us (such as rats passing germs), we don't mind allowing wild animals to enjoy our scraps, be it scraps of food or scraps of land, so why not treat those humans like we treat animals? Why not allow them the same status?

Since you mentioned Israel, the Israelis are known for their success in cultivating arid soil (and marshes) and making the desert bloom. If people like this somehow make it, if their boats do not sink and they survive the outback conditions in areas that we don't use anyway and which you just described as "not worth having", then why should you mind?

Yuyutsu, I'd not like to be a resident (or traveller) in a remote area and have a bunch of dispossessed people living rough in the bush nearby when it came to the point that they realised that I had some essentials that they didn't.

I don't quite know how you'd keep them out of the cities and town under that approach either. Once they've gotten someone's vehicle and some money what stops them from driving into the cities or towns?

R0bert

There appears to be a couple of guvment programs being rolled out currently with new arrivals in mind.

One is that they are being steered away from *AUSTUDY* by not dovetailing the AMEP time table with the TAFES etc, which has caused me some inconvenience I may add.

Instead, they are being herded into *Job Seeker* programs like LLNP, which aims to provide the minimums in terms of literacy and numeracy for immediate employment.

So do please some of you fools spare me your idiotic comments about the length of time some of these people are on welfare as the law demands minimum standards for health and safety.

Anyway, currently there is a strong impetus trying to stream these people into OLD AGE CARE.

..

Of course, for my BeLoved, only *AUSTUDY* is good enough, so that she may continue to be paid over the long academic Christ Mass holidays when we are in Indonesia for 5 - 6 weeks.

(That's beautiful isn't it? ;-) )
HaHaHa

As, if you are on *Job Seeker* terms and conditions, you can travel, but not at the Guvna's Pleasure.

..

Having said that, I have met and continue to meet a whole range of new arrivals, and as of yet, I have not met one who isn't busting to get a decent job and get into it. Unfortunately, there are considerable obstacles in their way.

So really, for some of you, grow a brain and look a little deeper.

..

One more thing, to me, whilst it is no longer a situation of "White Australia" it is very much a case of the "Wealthy Australia Immigration Policy." If you have no loot and no education, your prospects of getting in without a sponsor are very slim, except if you are a boat person.

And I would add, in my experiences in Indonesia and Thailand, the most genuine, decent, hard working people are the poor people. Not the parasites who predate upon them so think ye all well what kind of society it is that you think you are creating with your immigration policies.

@ Yuyutsu

<<Since you mentioned Israel, the Israelis are known for their success in cultivating arid soil (and marshes) and making the desert bloom. If people like this somehow make it, if their boats do not sink and they survive the outback conditions in areas that we don't use anyway and which you just described as "not worth having", then why should you mind?>>

Because, the most likely outcome would not be a mini replication of Israel (as scarey as that is to some!)
But as massive replication of The Horn Of Africa complete with overpopulation, crop failures, and its own version of Al-Shabaab.

And after a time, The Greens, Getup and rest of the Bleedin Heart industry would be decrying how immoral it was to confine this fledgling nation to the worst piece of land. And how we really owed them support. And the UN would intervene and Kevin 07 reborn would fly to Bali to sign a perpetual support agreement. And pretty soon Australia and the new states relationship would come to resemble that of the two birds in this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS9fFD0UGmE&feature=related
(PS: Oh, in case you haven't worked it out. Australia is the one doing the feeding!)

RObert
I was once against TPVs however compared to the current debate they seem like the better option. While I am not into open-slather borders, which is unworkable, not to mention the infrastructure pressures, refugees make up the smallest part of Australia's intake of newcomers.

As for other comments:

What is the difference between boat people and plane people? The number of boat arrivals is miniscule by comparison.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm#_Toc285178607

Increases in boat arrivals is mainly due to increased push factors like war, poverty and civil unrest.

Recent reports reveal that those who arrive by plane and who later apply for refugee status outnumber boat applicants by a factor of 30. Plane applicants are more likely to fail processing than boat applicants (excuse the vernacular).

Many appear to be confusing Australia's refugee programme with migration. There is a difference. There are enormous refugee populations in other parts of the world, where people are still seeking a 'home' or safe return to country of origin when conditions settle or return to normal.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/face_facts_05/refugee.html

How many refugees hold 'us' in contempt. Is there a statistic? Some do for sure, so do many Australians hold contempt for each other as some comments on OLO reveal. Some of the cultural differences are difficult in some first generation settlements, but it is wholly up to the Australian Government and judiciary to adhere to the Rule of Law in regard to any practices which break the law.

There is a real tendency to generalise about what refugees (or migrants) think based on the actions of a small minority. Why not take the cue from the vast majority of migrants/refugees who settle in Australia without a ripple.

Yuyutsu,
I am glad that you are gratefull and contribute to our society. We know we cannot save all the humanity of the world so we must be selective of immigrants. That selection is based on what the government sees as the employment prospects are for that person. Maybe it is not perfect but we try and we are generous with the family reunion. Personally I would like the number of immigrants greatly reduced.

As for boat arrivals, I refer to them as illegals simply because it is illegal to enter Australia without a valid visa and these people destroy their papers so as to con our officials and make it almost impossible to deport them, as their home countries will not accept those without positive identifacation. They are uninvited gate crashers who deliberately set out to deceive us and we pay enormously for this. No one likes to be deceived and is why I want them stopped.

The object of not giving them what they seek is to deter others from coming. We did have a detering programme in place but unfortunately this present government changed that and we now have a major problem. This was not by evil intent, but by stupid naivety and incompedence. Because the illegals now see our government as weak, it will take even tougher measures to stop them comming.

You may think we have land to spare but believe me it is harsh and we could not even keep them there unless we made it a giant fenced detention centre. Not to mention as to how would they live, get shelter and supplies and generate income. They would all have to be kept by us. So your concept is unworkable.

No, we must put deterants in place to stop them comming. That is the most cost effective and proven humane action to take.

pelican well put. The horrors of boat arrivals seem to be blown out of all proportion to the actual impacts.

I suspect that there is opportunity there for the politician who is willing to change tack and present some real alternatives to the current approach without creating the impression of open borders.

There must be better ways we can deal with this both for this country and for those who are genuinely escaping a crisis in their homeland.

Not much imagination or courage being shown by the current crop of so called leaders.

R0bert

R0bert,

"I'd not like to be a resident (or traveller) in a remote area and have a bunch of dispossessed people living rough in the bush nearby when it came to the point that they realised that I had some essentials that they didn't."

I can understand this, but would it be different if you replaced "people" with "animals"?

Just like with animals, you should do whatever you need to do to defend yourself and your family and ensure your safety.

But as SPQR noted, the actual problem is not directly with those people, treated for better or worse as animals, who in small numbers pose no threat, but rather with the GetUp brigade who believe that humans must not under any circumstances be treated as animals (including when they willingly choose to be so treated).

Animal numbers are usually contained by nature. The occasional boom, such as the cane toad's, can be treated accordingly - and ditto if/before the situation with human-animals comes close to that of the Horn of Africa.

"I don't quite know how you'd keep them out of the cities and town under that approach either. Once they've gotten someone's vehicle and some money what stops them from driving into the cities or towns?"

Primarily, a fence, same as dingos.
Now what do you do when despite this an animal reaches the city?
Well if it is dangerous or causes harm, then you put it down, but if it becomes someone's pet, which they keep on leash in their backyard and causes no sanitary, noise or smell problems, then why should you mind?

If someone wants to arrive in a human capacity and be part of Australian society, then of course they need to fill forms, pass tests, present documents, get a visa, etc. But if one [freely] chooses to arrive in the capacity of an animal, then there is nothing wrong or immoral in treating them as such.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Again, the problem is the GetUp brigade, the greens and the reds, who want to see everyone be a part of their society, by hook or by crook. Their twisted humanistic ideas deny humans their right to not participate in society (or in any particular society, especially theirs): participation should instead be an option based on mutual agreement. When one is not willing to participate in society, then as far as that society is concerned, they are animals and should be treated accordingly.

Now the crunch point - As every human is also an animal, the same right of choosing the status of animal, should be extended not only to illegal arrivals, but also to people legally in Australia.

But better than that, I would actually prefer a multi-tiered approach, where the level of participation in society is not binary where the only available choice is either to be a full/human member or an animal - while society is under no moral obligation to provide other options, I would like to see it accommodating the shades in between as well.

Banjo,

You are totally right regarding people who wish to arrive in the capacity of people. I suspect that the number of people who prefer to arrive in the capacity of an animal is quite small and most of them are likely to be genuinely desperate and not for economic reasons. Most of those will not survive the trip and harsh conditions anyway, so their threat to Australia is minimal.

"Not to mention as to how would they live, get shelter and supplies and generate income. They would all have to be kept by us. So your concept is unworkable."

Why should this be our problem whether they live or die, given that they never in the first place even asked us to care for them? We are under no obligation to feed all kangaroos and possums, so why those? Other than the GetUp brigade there is nothing compelling us to behave like SPQR's smaller bird.

"but would it be different if you replaced "people" with "animals"?"

There are very few animals on our shores that I think could best me if I'd taken basic precautions and avoided places where the odd's were well against me (I'd not swim in waters likely to contain croc's).

I can't think of any animals on our shores who could break into a locked home or camper and pose a credible threat to human residents, a single human is more than capable of that.

It's very different if we replace animals with humans but treat the human's like animals.

R0bert

Yuyutsu,
You are being contradictory. You first claim we treat animals better than humans and that we should allow any to come here that wants to.
Now you say we should restrict Illegal arrivals to a harsh area and just let them fend for themselves. Why should we care, you say!

That would certainly stop the boats coming but we are not like that. We do care about the welfare of other humans.

I do not know how long you have been here but you will notice we have a comprehensive social services system that assists people when needed. We may well detain illegals but they are well provided for with Air con, good food and medical attention. I understand they even get spending allowances, phone access and internet access. When they get permanent residence they get the same benefits all other immigrants get, the same as was available to you.

Prisoners in our jails also get good treatment.

I do not know the social standards of the society from which you came but what you advocate for treatment of illegals is simply not acceptable in Australia. The humane action is to deter them from coming.

Here we are arguing about how to let immigrants, legal & illegal into
the country at the same time we are arguing about how to divide the
water between feeding people and the environment !

It is obvious that we must reject all immigrants and start deporting
as many of those that have been here for a to be decided period of time.

We have obviously exceeded our carrying capacity or we would not be
having the argument about the Murray Darling River Basin.

End of argument ! Not possible to get around that.

Bazz
Sustainable populations can be managed via flexibility in immigration quotas but this is about refugees. Two different subjects. Remember what happened to the Jews when countries turned them away only to return to a certain death.

I am all for sustainability, our mainly arid contintent is already having difficulty with water management and much arable land being used for exports while at the same time importing food that can easily be grown locally. But I digress.

I am all for discouraging boat arrivals but there is too much furore over boat arrivals as 'illegals'. Seeking asylum or refuge is not illegal. It is visa overstayers who arrive by plane that are illegal.

If an applicant is not a genuine refugee they won't be approved.

It is a difficult area of policy, there is no way Australia and other countries could ever hope to take all refugees who are sitting in camps.

Maybe the key is to reduce the number of refugees by reducing the conditions that create these situations. How to? Difficult. This is one area where I think some intervention might be valid where there are legitimate human rights abuses rather than wars waged out of self interest. Even then, I hesitate because sometimes change is only possible if it comes from within, and there is always a chance one tyranny will simply replace the other.

First world countries also have to do some soul searching in how their own policies may add to the woes of the developing world.

There is no contradiction, Banjo - there is a choice and everyone should be able to choose between [at least] two tracks: the humane track and the animal track (in my last post I also briefly mentioned allowing in-betweens, but that's for another day).

If one chooses the humane track, then they are subject to the treatment you mentioned, including detention and possible deportation, but also social and medical services, phone and internet, food and air-conditioning, and the possibility of recognition as legitimate refugees. The fine details are under debate, some claim that Labor's way is better, some the Liberals', but the framework is the same: no society is obliged to accept new members it does not want.

What I am introducing here is different - the "animal" track, to which anyone is entitled by nature. Denying this track is an irrational and unfair discrimination against humans. Those who choose this track do not become (or remain) part of society and their lives are not protected, yet they should receive similar rights as the RSPCA guidelines: to not be tortured, to be treated well if taken as pets, not to be killed without a need, and if there is such a need, to be put down in the quickest and least painful way.

"That would certainly stop the boats coming but we are not like that. We do care about the welfare of other humans."

-But that's the whole problem. It is patronizing. It is assuming for others what their good is supposed to be instead of letting them decide for themselves. You may care for the welfare of their bodies, but that does not amount to caring for them and the welfare of their souls. Some prefer death over imprisonment.

Somehow, it seems that Australian-borns acquired an image of immigrants as people who want to suck their wealth and feed on their institutions and infrastructure. There may indeed be immigrants like this, but I was not one of those. No such thoughts have ever crossed my mind when I arrived. Immigrants arrive for various oppressive pressures, mostly non-economic.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Formally, I did not arrive as a refugee: I arrived legally, on a plane as an independent professional, but in my heart I was a refugee. My intention was not to become part of Australian society (nor to harm it either), but to escape the place I came from. If anything, I considered the Australian society as a nuisance. I wanted to be left to my own devices and would rather deal with the elements instead. Being younger at the time, I would have preferred to be treated as an animal and start building my life on my own (or with a like-minded community) than to be involved with Australian society and receive its benefits, but the option was not there and I had to compromise.

BTW, from what I've been told, conditions in Australian jails are in fact worse than in other countries. Prisoners are not allowed for example to bring in many personal items that are allowed elsewhere; even those who pose no danger to society get not leaves till the end as they get elsewhere; contact during visits is more limited than elsewhere.

"The humane action is to deter them from coming."

I agree. That's up to those who design the humane track. I do not claim to be an expert in the matter and once the "animal" track is available, I have no objection to being tougher on those who willingly select the humane track.

R0bert,

"I can't think of any animals on our shores who could break into a locked home or camper and pose a credible threat to human residents, a single human is more than capable of that."

From the spirit of what I just wrote you can deduce that IF indeed such a credible threat exists, then you may do whatever you need to do to eliminate it.

I suspect, however, that those animal-humans would be more afraid of you than you of them, that being more intelligent than other animals they would have a clear understanding that if they break in or do similar things, they will be hunted down. Also, that they did not come to the Australian continent in order to live near you (or else they would come and ask to be your pets), but would rather live away as possible from civilization.

Pelican, we cannot afford to discriminate between those who may be
genuine and those who are cheats.
We simply have to put up the drawbridge.
Forget about using mining revenue, that is on borrowed time.

When you come to the point where you have to reduce food production
where else is there to go ?
Sure we are rich enough (at present) to outbid poorer people for their food.
But should we when we can cut our numbers back and feed ourselves ?
It is simple enough, not enough water to feed ourselves so we MUST
get rid of some of those already here.

Yuyutsu given how many have come from active conflict area's and my lack of interest in living in a setting out of a Mad Max film I'd not be overly confident that they'd be the ones with something to fear.

I suspect that the bulk of rural Australian's would be somewhat appalled at the idea that they might need to start fortifying their homes, vehicles etc because the city folk had decided that they should share their environment with groups of desperate people who were being treated as animals. They'd also need to work out how to protect livestock, outbuildings, equipment etc from roaming bands of people with little to loose by taking whatever was unguarded.

I'm not quite picturing small communes of peaceful refugee's finding a way to live off the land in area's that no-one else uses and with no unwanted interaction with the rest of the population (and hopefully no negative environmental impact on desert eco-systems).

R0bert

Pelican,
You say. 'I am all for discouraging boat arrivals but there is too much furore over boat arrivals as 'illegals'. Seeking asylum or refuge is not illegal. It is visa overstayers who arrive by plane that are illegal.

If an applicant is not a genuine refugee they won't be approved.'

Seeking asylum is not illegal, but to enter Australia without a valid visa is definately illegal. The UN states that those seeking asylum must obey a countries laws firstly. The only reason we can hold the illegals in detention is because they have broken our laws. We cannot detain people without valid cause. Legal entrants are not detained.

If you gain your info from the DIAC, they list the number of overstayers and the vast majority are simply tourists who want to see more and they continue to spend their money here, so are of little concern. The numbers are static because as some leave they are replaced by others who overstay,perhaps for a day or two or maybe for more, but they leave of their own volition. The DIAC also list the number of long term overstayers, which, from memory, is not very great. These numbers are acceptable unless you wish to run a police state and check the occupants of every hotel, etc. each night.

Those few that arrive by air, without a valid visa, are sent back to the place of embarking. Those valid arrivals who then apply for asylum are let into the community because we have definate knowledge of their personal details and can deport them if not elligible.

How can you be a genuine refuge, by passing through several countries to get here. That is somewhat selective, paying thousands for a boat ride and enter here broke, is that a refuge. All refugees should be a matter for the UN to distribute, to available recipients.

The number of boat arrivals is miniscule by comparison.
pelican,
Multiply that figure several times & combined with the birthrate once settled here & you'll find the agenda is paying dividends.
Just read up on Europe.

Individual,
From memory, the only time illegal air arrivals out numbered the boat arrivals was when the previous government virually had all the boats stopped. Check DIAC for details.

Excuse me, but are we talking about herds of cattle or are we talking about human beings?
Someone at one stage let a heap of convicts come in to this country, where they were eventually set free.
Most of us are descended from the early settlers, and the rest of us migrated here to be welcomed with open arms.
Are we all so precious that we think we are the only people who deserved a better life in this country? The attitude shown toward these refugees shown my many many Australians is deplorable, because certain people in our communities have denigrated these desperate people, because they either don't understand their culture, and/or haven't bothered to research their beliefs. The negative attitude of so-called Australians, who just cry "send them back to where they came from" need a big kick in their rear ends. I say "send yourselves to their country and see what these folk are fleeing from, and see if you change your attitudes for the better", to all of the detractors out there, I say "Shame on you", you are very un-Australian.
Posted by one, very ashamed, Australian.
NSB

NSB; the rules have changed !
We are now in the zero growth era and we do not have enough water to
produce our food.

Forget all the feely good stuff, it is now time to look at the real world.

Bazz,
I reckon I have a reasonable handle on the World today, and I am not, repeat not, about warm and fuzzy. But what I would like to see is all of the detractors of the current boat people take a trip to the Middle Eastern countries, then see if you change your minds. Maybe we can organise a people exchange program. Now that, my friend would be very interesting, would make a good study I reckon. :)

Enjoy your day,
Noisy Scrub Bird.

NSB, Why can't they fix their own problems ?
Everybody else has to fix their own problems.
Bringing a small percentage of them here will only mean removing those
with a bit of get up and go from their own countries.
A sort of brain drain.

Anyway it is irrelevant the government is now telling the farmers that
they have cut back on food production.
That is the start & finish of it.

Bazz,

"Why can't they fix their own problems?"....very funny of course if you're an Iraqi or Afghan refugee....their "problems" are directly related to the fact that the U.S. led coalition bombed the crap out of them.

And African refugees are often fleeing situations where the IMF and World Bank gave jumped into bed with the corrupt ruling elite and robbed the general population of their means.

The West is one huge robber baron who wouldn't know ethical commerce if it jumped up and bit it on the.....

Irrelevant Piorot, we have to cut back on food production, Julia says so.

Bazz,re "Why can't they fix their own problems, everyone else does."

Do they? Do they all fix their own problems, if so, why does a large part of our population have to blame the government for their own short comings? So many people do so many stupid things, and then use the (what I call the "stupidity catch cry"), turn round and cry that the Gov. do something about it.
Sorry my friend, people do not fix their own problems. Are you wearing rose coloured glasses or what?
NSB

Not at all. We are not more smart than anybody else.
We fixed our political and economic problems up till now.
Nothing is perfect but it is tolerable.
We only argue in places like this and we don't go around shooting each other.

Is there something odd about other peoples that they cannot sort out
their problems ? Do we have to do it for them ?

R0bert,

"I suspect that the bulk of rural Australian's would be somewhat appalled at the idea that they might need to start fortifying their homes, vehicles etc"

Almost anyone would - but do they need to?

If an Australian person was living rough in the outback and stole a chicken, they would at most get a fine or a community-service order; or if it was a tourist they may be deported, but if a human-animal was stealing a chicken, then himself and his whole tribe would be shot dead without trial (isn't that what you do with foxes?).

I thought that for human-animals this was a powerful deterrent from even dreaming of stealing a chicken, yet you do not consider it strong enough. You also seem to expect the worst-case-scenario from immigrants, but not from Australians or tourists. As most Australians, you would likely be generous towards poor Australians and happy to share with them old clothes and food that you don't need. In fact even with stray dogs and cats - but not with those human-animals. Why?

Safety is relative - the only absolute safety is in the grave, so I seriously ask you, what further guarantees would you need, once human-animals are allowed into the continent of Australia, in order to feel the same level of safety as you now get with the current mix of Australian (including migrants) and tourist population?

Contracts are only contracts if they were entered into freely. There are people, believe it or not, who are not after your wealth, resources or favours, who despite all nationalistic and/or humanistic/socialist propaganda, have never entered into a so-called "social contract", neither in their country of origin nor in Australia (some of them were actually born in Australia) - and most of those are honest and innocent, victims of persecution by regimes which cover the whole earth leaving no spot free on this planet (in fact not even on the moon).

There must be a way, some way, for innocent people to live and die freely on the face of the earth.

All of this talk about the boat people needing to be turned around and sent back is very odd. By law, if people (no matter how they arrive on our shores)are seeking asylum, we have no choice but to process them, only then, can we expel those who do not meet the criteria of asylum seekers. Once the boats are in our territory we are obliged to process them. We don't own this Country, we have the privilege of living here,other cultures have been welcome and still are, why not the asylum seekers fleeing a land in which it is not safe to live anymore? Do we still live by the "I am alright Jack....to hell with anyone else" attitude?,very un-australian I reckon.
NSB

NSB,
Unfortunately we are talking about people, not cattle. If they were cattle I would have far more confidence in their honesty and integrity than I do of these people. Cattle are honest about their intentions.

These illegal boat people know it is illegal to enter Aus without a valid visa and they are prepared to pay far more than the air fare to enter via the back door. They have the money to come here legally but choose not to, they are coached in what lies to tell our authorities and destroy any identifacation papers so it is almost impossible for us to deport them.

These are the reasons most Aussies have little sympathy for the illegals and would far perfer to take in bona fide refugees from other places.

Haven't you noticed that nobody likes to be conned and gate crashed.

You do know that if they came in legally and applied for asylum they would be let into the community while their claims processed.

It might be interesting to examine the trend in the size of the boats.
The last two that arrived yesterday carried 110 & 103 people.
This indicates that the boats are getting bigger.
The next step would be to buy a small coastal freighter that is ready
for the breakers and load it up with 1000 people.
The carrying capacity of a ship is proportional to the cube of its length.
$10,000 x 1000 would enable a very substantial ship to be purchased
and leave many millions in the hands of the organisers.

Does anyone imagine that they have not realised that ?
The Greens made the suggestion that a safer method must be found
so why not just arrange for such a ship to make a weekly voyage ?

It makes good business sense.
In case anyone thinks that is fanciful, it has already been done in Europe.

Contd;
It was also done with two ships from Sri Lanka to Canada.

Dear Bazz,

I wouldn't like to interfere or take sides in the debate on the humane-track of immigration (as opposed to the animal-track which I discussed). A society has the right to accept or refuse new members under whatever terms it chooses, so there is an interesting discussion about what those terms should be, with valid perspectives on both sides.

I just wanted to comment on water and food security:
If the situation is so bad, then why not bring water from the flooded north to the parched south? Why not build a system of tunnels, pipes and pumps to connect Australia's northern watershed with its southern?

I heard estimates that this can be done with about $10-billion, just a fifth of the cost of the NBN, so what are we waiting for?

I also find it strange that with shortage of food, farmers are still growing cotton, which is the biggest water-guzzler.

And just one more side comment:

"Irrelevant Piorot, we have to cut back on food production, Julia says so."

- How can you tell that it was indeed Julia who said it - after all, no man could ever see Her yet remain alive?

- But suppose it was indeed Her, then all you need is to eat Her flesh and drink Her blood - you will then never go hungry!

Yuyutsu,
I seriously doubt such a water system could be built for less than
several $100s billions.
There is another catch 22 (isn't there always) and it is that water is
heavy and the pumping costs are so enormous that the government would
go broke getting the electricity to the pumps and paying the bill.
Then the water would be so dear no one would buy it.
You said;
I also find it strange that with shortage of food, farmers are still
growing cotton, which is the biggest water-guzzler.

I don't think that it is as simple as that.
I saw something that Barnaby Joyce said about it, the water used was
only a small percentage of the total flow. Anyway we need clothes.

You said;
"Irrelevant Piorot, we have to cut back on food production, Julia says so."
Well that was a bit tongue in cheek, but "It is the government I lead".

The bottom line is we have to reduce our water use and as a result
reduce our food production.
The reduction will be deleted from our exports of course so someone
else will go hungry, not us.

Hi Banjo,
Maybe we should all walk in the shoes of the people who are desperate enough to leave their homes and seek a better life here.
Criticism is null and void if all people do is criticise and cry "send them back home"
I realise that among the 'triers' there are some 'shonky' folk trying to enter this country illegally, but I think you/we would understand that "they" are not all the same.
NSB

Hi Noisy Scrub Bird,

How about taking a walk in this lots shoes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeSgBL7gpAk
Their faces seem no less traumatized.

Actually if the truth be told --and it often isn't -- there are many similarities between this lot and yours.
The chief being, they're both afraid they're going to miss out on the bargains!

SPQR
Your post is nonsensical, re: "Your Lot", what is your definition of "my lot?"
NSB

SPQR
I viewed the You Tube clip,
Not my style at all, I am offended that you likened me to the rabble therein.
NSB

Not sure about the validity this message, but I suppose we need to
know these things if they are true. Anyone with evidence to the contrary ?


We all have had the discussion of the boat people at some time or another. Most of us can't understand why the Australian Labor government continues to pay for these foreigners whilst hard working Australians continue to suffer the brunt of taxes, levies and tolls to help pay for the government's mis-spending.

Well the time has come for the truth, I am asking everyone of you to spread this as far as you can and eventually it will end up with someone who might be able to do something about it.

According to an Australian Federal Police Officer, who obviously will never be named, this is some of the facts you all need to be aware of.

[1] Currently the Federal Police are not producing as many drug busts due to the millions of dollars of their budget being put into intercepting illegal boat people

[2] When the boat sank last year off Christmas Island, the Australian authorities were throwing life jackets to the children and the adults were swimming to where the life jackets were, pushing the children under the water and taking the life jackets to save themselves

[3] When the boat people arrive here, they have already printed out from the net their rights and have a list of welfare benefits that they demand from the Australian Governmen

[4] Whilst in detention they tell the guards that they are here to serve them and the Federal Police have already investigated a number of assaults on detention staff resulting from them "not respecting" the detainees. So in other words when a guard doesn't respect or serve these illegal boat people to their satisfaction, they believe it's fine to backhand them to gain a little more respect

[5] After spending around 6-9 months in detention, the illegal boat people have approximately $10 000 saved in welfare payments from the Australian Government. They then send the money home and arrange for the next family member to come out on a boat. So this means we are actually paying for the flood of illegal boat people through the welfare payments provided to them

[6] The boat people are all given mobile phones and allowed to phone where ever in the world they please. The reported cost of the combined telephone bills for the first quarter of this year was $5 000 000, Yes, you read correctly, 5 million dollars, all care of us - the tax payer

[7] Residents and the Federal Police on Christmas Island only have dial-up internet which we all know is impracticable in today's internet age. Yet all the detainees have broadband internet care of the tax payer yet again

These are all facts that simply can't be spoken about by those who know. Well the time has come Australia to say enough is enough

How can you be a genuine refuge, by passing through several countries to get here.
579,
Valid point !
It shows that people deliberately choose to come to Australia rather than simply escaping persecution from their countries. Would there be a similar uproar if some Afghan refugees were to stop in Vietnam or Myanmar etc & get thrown into detention? Just think that they have to go through these countries to get here. Why do you think they don't get bailed up way before they get here ? Think people.

Someone please tell me why the silence on this subject. Are the points factual or imagination ?