Any one see the Ray Martin interview on ABC?
It was repeated a few times, my PC suffered from kids and was in the shop.
So I did twice.
Ray is no lefty, in fact his comments turned me right of, kiss and cuddle to Murdock press.
But he pointed out we switch off on politics.
We do! now Greens hold their beliefs to their Brest's, and think its the right ones.
However they may well fail to understand a basic.
Numbers in the end win.
Labors stumbling, Rudd's not delivering, Gillard and the party's loss of hearing the voice of voters drove their vote higher.
It has peaked, the intrusion of very radical NSW left members has hurt them.
If Abbott can rely on Greens to block this legislation?
We will see that vote drive.
Only the truth, we Aussies care little for true understanding of politics, saves them.

Luciferase has things back-to-front. The problem has less to do with where the illegals are processed –but quite a lot to do with the ineffectiveness of our processing.

Browsing the Refugee Review Tribunal cases shows claims from every corner of the world--but some nationals are more favoured than others

And NO, it’s NOT because the less favoured nationals are necessarily less worse off. Few (with any knowledge of real world) would doubt that the Chinese & Indian’s in Malaysia,or the Christians in Indonesia are not badly done by. Yet asylum claims by those nationals are largely dismissed,while appeals by those claiming to be from Afghanistan or Sri Lanka (or Fiji) –backed by little more than generic stories --are more often than not accepted.
<<NINETY-SIX per cent of Afghan asylum claims finalised last year were successful >>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/almost-all-afghans-allowed-to-stay/story-fn59niix-1226007198197

It's our favorable treatment of some groups that is encouraging them.

And that is why we are getting flotillas full of Afghani’s
--though many have not lived in Afghanistan for decades.
<< many people undeservingly used the prosecution of certain ethnic groups in Afghanistan in their advantage to get residency status in Australia>>
http://www.blogetcetera.com/2011/the-afghan-bazaar-or-boat-bazaar/

And customs-vessel-hijacking Tamils claiming to be from Sri Lanka
–though many have not lived in Sri Lanka for decades.
<<A notable example was "Alex" Kuhendrarajah, the spokesman for a group of Tamils in Indonesia, who, contrary to his claims, had lived in Chennai, India, for many years and had previously been deported from Canada because of his involvement in criminal activities>>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/beware-of-asylum-seekers-bearing-tales-of-woe/story-e6frg6zo-1225850659899

We are quick to blame poor governance in places like Indonesia, and call for regional solutions –but a lot of the fault lies with the namby-pamby policies of successive OZ administrations.

It’s a bit like me advertising free beer for the first two hundred guests to my new years eve party. Then bemoaning the fact that my neighbors have not been able to stop unscrupulous individuals from trekking across my back fence,and calling for a suburban solution to “the problem”.

And as for the Greens needing to respect the “rights of (our) nation” or middle Australia --ROFL

SPQR,

is your point that we could assimilate more refugees if the blend was different, i.e. a lower proportion of muslims in the total resettled?

Perhaps Australia's military involvement in the world is reflected in the intake blend. Whatever, that's a very subjective matter you raise but doesn't challenge the idea that the total figure set down for resettlement should be our right to decide.

Perhaps your point that the blend of the intake should reflect the blend of the present population, or advance christian over muslim asylum applicants? This is again, a subjective matter.

Please articulate more exactly your point that makes my opening piece illogical.

The "suburban" analogy to the "regional" solution assumes we share fences with adjacent neighbouring blocks. Australia is an island and outsiders don't get away with just landing on our shores and blending in. We have considerable control over matters.

Re ROFL, I hope you will have to stand upright in amazement soon, but I'm not willing to bet on it. The Greens need to take a less kamikaze approach to politics at some point, I just hope that point is nigh.

Aren't the Greens for stalling progress in order to save the environment ? I doubt if they'll agree to more & more bush being cleared to house more boat people. More pressure on the environment etc.

Luciferase,

<<but doesn't challenge the idea that the total figure set down for resettlement should be our right to decide>>
I'm not challenging it. I agree wholeheartedly we have the right to choose both the number and mix. Though I think you'll find
many of your erstwhile allies on OLO will scream "racism" & moan about The White Australia Policy at any mention of the phrase: right to choose. They see Australia as a giant soup kitchen--and a soup kitchen has no right to pick & choose its clientele!

<<Perhaps Australia's military involvement in the world is reflected in the intake blend>>
This is a furphy. We've never had any culpability in the Sri Lankan civil war, nor any of the African conflicts (unless you subscribe to the Poirot doctrine that it's a giant class war and the robber barons West is bleeding the rest!). It's a damned if we do and damned if we don't scenario: if we get involved we're told we have a responsibility to take in the displaced,and if we don't, we're told we're duty bound to take them in because we didn't intervene.

My core point is we don't need the Malaysian non-solution to stop the boats. We just have to have the backbone to set the bar higher.

We have had recent examples where we turned-around Javanese & New Guineans posing as refugees. And every day we turn-around Chinese, Indians & Europeans by the score.

I do not see any armadas of the aforementioned landing on our shore.
If it is made loud and clear they will get a NO they will not come.
They may well try other means --posing as student hairdressers or cooks --but they will not masquerade as castaways.

See here right from the (Trojan) horse's mouth:
"If Australia does no want asylum seekers to come to Australia [by boat], it is a better way to close all the borders and THEN NO-ONE WILL COME."
http://www.smh.com.au/world/survivors-tell-why-the-boats-keep-coming-20111219-1p1td.html

The only question is do we have the backbone to stand up to the noisy advocates & their Green allies?

Respect your opinion SPQR but disagree where you write "My core point is we don't need the Malaysian non-solution to stop the boats. We just have to have the backbone to set the bar higher."

Just why is it that forcibly turning back unsafe, overcrowded boats back out to further danger at sea, which inherently compromises the navy, appeals to you so? Simply calling the Malaysian swap a "non-solution" is not an argument against it. I assert it will work and you assert it won't. I hope we get to find out.

You use the words of a disaster survivor, "Why does Australia not close the border? Everyone is coming because the border is open. Everyone is going there and they are being accepted"

Again we come down to how we "close the border". If that means forcibly turning back unsafe, overcrowded boats back out to further danger at sea then, sorry, Australia can do better than that.

The Malaysian swap, endangers nobody at sea and does not compromise the navy.

It will take awhile for the swap to establish itself as a deterrent, as did the use of force.

We are closer than you think on many points. SPQR, but I draw the line at using force as a deterrent.

BTW, there are other threads where I have had plenty to say on issues raised around the swap, which I don't want to rehash.

We agree with the disaster survivors that they blame open borders for their risk-taking and that the Greens can do something about that.