DreamOn, you’ve picked a very appropriate pseudonym!! Love your musings.

Now you’ve struck and even deeper chord with me re: the Albany pitcher plant – Cephalotus follicularis. I’m an even madder botto than birdo.

What a botanical oddity. It is the only species in the family Cephalotaceae. And completely unrelated to the other pitcher plants in Australia which occur in far north Queensland, of the genus Nepenthes, which are placed not only in a different family but in a different order.

A little treasure with a very restricted distribution in the swamps of the south coast of WA.

----

Paul, thanks for your reply. Will respond in the morning….when I’m feeling a little less dreamy!

SPQR,
I do not profess to be an expert on matters of immigration. I have put forward my thoughts on the subject. From your posts its difficult to ascertain where you stand. Other than the obvious paranoia concerning Asians, with comments like:
"from one of the countries which is currently on the top-of-the-pops hot list They are almost assured of getting asylum"
"inducing 500,000 illegals to arrive on our north-western coast"
"hundreds of thousands south Asians arriving on our door step bleating “I’m a climate refugee”.
And this one "come from a pool of 200,000,000 (and counting) “climate victims” is this another one of your calculations.
"A little bit less Green’s catechism and a great deal more real world experience."
With your "real world experience", what is your view on immigration to Australia? Increase, decrease, none at all, chop out the Asians, reintroduce the White Australia Policy, blow up 'boat people' what should we do?. I did ask if you were in control what would you have done in 2010/11? No answer, can I assume then the 169K was all right by you.

Paul. I’d like to think that we are reasonably close in our views. But I do have serious and fundamental differences with theGreen? So where does that leave you within this party?

Could you possibly outline just what it is that you disagree with them about regarding the matters being discussed in our conversation?

I don’t want to make it difficult, it just seems like a logical next step in this debate.

You wrote:

<< Its not realistic to believe Australia can embrace a closed door nil immigration policy or return to a totally discriminatory policy… >>

Agreed. But it is very realistic for us to have a net zero immigration policy where the number of people leaving the country in a particular year is equal to the immigration intake for the following year.

And it is highly reasonable for this immigration program to be centred around refugees, with only a small component of skills.

If we were to do this and thus become a sustainability-oriented society and a refugee-friendly country, as well as no longer being a rather parasitic country in terms of gobbling up skilled people from less developed countries, we would surely be in good stead on the world stage.

The relationship between government in big business is the major stumbling block.

To this end, the Greens should have been howling very loudly about the political donations regime and other favours rendered by big business which make a mockery of our so-called democratic system.

Yes, visa overstayers should be clamped down on. It is crazy to have the law dictate one thing and for something quite different to actually happen, in an ongoing and full-on manner.

Surely the greens should have been very strongly pushing for our visa laws to be enforced, or failing this, for the law and accepted practice to be brought into line.

Cheers.

Paul 1405,

You seem bamboozled by the 200,000,000 figure of “climate refugees” –calling it my calculation.
<<And this one "come from a pool of 200,000,000 (and counting) “climate victims” is this another one of your calculations>>

It is a figure cited by the IPCC and allied groups. And the IPCC reports have been the justification for the Green’s climate policy (including the carbon tax).

--“British environmentalist, Norman Myers, became the most prominent proponent of this ‘maximalist’ school (Suhrke 1993). Noting, that "environmental refugees will soon become the largest group of involuntary refugees" [2]. Additionally, he stated that there were 25 million environmental refugees in the mid-1990s, further claiming that this figure could double by 2010, with an upper limit of 200 million by 2050”
--“the most common claims being that 150-200 million people will be climate change refugees by 2050. Variations of this claim have been made in influential reports on climate change by the IPCC”[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_migrant

--The United Nations estimates that 25 million climate refugees exist today. That number is expected to double to 50 million within the next five years
http://www.earthsfriends.com/climate-refugees

--By 2010 the number of environmental refugees could grow to 50 million, the UNU-EHS predicts. According to other estimates, there could be as many as 150 million by 2050.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1118_051118_disaster_refugee.html

As for my suggestions:
<< what is your view on immigration to Australia?>>

Here’s one for starters –straight from the horses mouth, so to speak:

"Why does Australia not close the border?," said Esmat Adine, a 24 year old Afghan. "Everyone is coming because the border is open. Everyone is going there and they are being accepted."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#ixzz1scfUPWuR

If we take a firm stand that anyone who elects to self–select themselves and boat-in will NOT be accepted --few will give it a try.

So, both a botto and a birdo, Ludwig.

>>I’m an even madder botto than birdo<<

I should have guessed.

Pity you aren't more of a people-o, though.

Ludwig,

My view on asylum seekers, off shore processing and mandatory detentions. Firstly I believe Australia has a responsibility to these people as a signatory to the International Convention on Refugees. It is on us to abide by our obligations to this convention. We also have obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These rights include the right not to be arbitrarily detained.
Under the Australian Migration Act asylum seekers are to be held in immigration detention until they are granted a visa or removed from Australia. That is not a problem for me. However, we go beyond this and impose mandatory detention despite there being a distinction in law between the Act and what is actually applied. With mandatory detention we apply indefinite detention Some asylum seekers and refugees spend long periods of time in immigration detention waiting for their refugee claim to be assessed; waiting for the completion of health, identity and security checks; or awaiting removal from Australia if their refugee claim has been unsuccessful. I do not believe this is a humanitarian approach. Once it has been established that a person is not a threat to the Australian community. they are not a criminal, they should be housed within the community until their status is determined. The government has move a number of unaccompanied children and families with children into community detention. Which in my view is a positive thing. We forget it was Howard who introduced community detention in 2005 and the vast majority of asylum seeker arriving by air are being housed in the community on bridging visas.
cont.