You know, things are pretty crook, when we have so many of our own who are homeless, or dont know where their next meal is comming from, while on the other hand we open our doors to illegals in the tens of thousands, providing accommodation, warm beds and guaranteed meals, and then some.

Then we have people, going off to work, paying their taxes, paying for their travel means, car/public trans etc, then being slugged a huge portion of their income so their kids can be cared for while they go about thier duty of generating taxes.

Meanwhile, old single mum,or non working parents, gets to go to the movies, paying a pittance, if anything, to have her kid/kids looked after in the same care facility.

In my view Any mother who goes back to work should be provided with either free, or next to free child care, regardless of thier income, as they have done their bit for our nation and shoukd not be punished for it.

Then we have retirees fighting tooth and nail every day just to obtain the slightest benefits, because for some reason they have been exonerated for working too hard and accumulating too many assetts.

Meanwhile, the ones who sit in the pubs/clubs, squeezing the last cent of their welfare into the pokies, between smoke breaks, get to do this unhampered by the very system that has denied the pension to those who provided to the system in their working lives before being told (mid steam), sorry, you will no longer be eligible for the pension.

I really think it's about time we turn the tables and offer reward for effort ,rather than the mentality that we have whereby those who fail get the rewards, while those who succeed get the pleasure of providing taxes, knowing they will not be supported.

I have always said, a portion of your tax should be set aside for your retirement, over and above super.

The more tax one pays throughout their working lives, the higher the pension they should receive.

Perhaps it's time for a different approach.

rehctub,
got this the other day from a mate, it falls into the gist of this thread.

Fred submitted his 2012 taxation return recently & had it promptly returned by the Tax Office stating that the answer to the qestion "List all your dependants" was unacceptable. His initial answer to this question on his Tax Return was as follows: I support the following dependants

1. 200000 illegal immigrants
2. 180000 crack heads
3. 50000 unemployed on benefits
4. 20000 people in prison
5. 150 fools in parliament

When his Tax Return was returned to him stating that the abovementioned answers were unacceptable, he promptly sent it back again to the Tax Office with the query,

"Did I forget someone"

rehctub wrote: "You know, things are pretty crook, when we have so many of our own who are homeless, or dont know where their next meal is comming from, while on the other hand we open our doors to illegals in the tens of thousands, providing accommodation, warm beds and guaranteed meals, and then some."

Dear rehctub,

Who is 'our own'? Are we not part of humanity? Is not every person on earth a member of the same species that we are?

We do not open our doors to illegals or to those arriving by boat who are not illegal. It is not a crime to come to Australia as a boat person. Australia in putting boat people in detention imprisons people who have committed no crime. You have equated imprisonment with hospitality. Prison is hospitality of a sort but not the kind I would want.

Putting people in detention is NOT opening our doors.

rehctub,

Regarding seniors and the pension.....what a great idea!

Imagine the two tiers of retirees, one lot, having earned a pretty penny during their working lives being stoked up with extra pension and benefits they don't really need - and the other lot stuffed into "poor houses" like in the old days before social democracy.

What a wonderful vibrant society that would create.

You really are something out of Dickens aren't you.

David if you love them so much, you support them.

I have no interest in being ripped of by these gate crashers, or our own bludgers. I am prepared to do something to help those who have had a bad deal, but druggies, criminals, & bludgers can go jump, along with ALL boat people.

There may be some good to come out of this fiasco. Enough people have now got their backs up at being ripped off by the bleeding hearts & their chosen "underprivileged", that we might actually let the pollies know we won't take any more.

If the pollies throw any more money at these fool bleeding hearts, & their projects, there is a very reasonable chance that they will loose many votes, enough perhaps to wake them up to our annoyance.

Obviously this has finally got through to Julia & the Labor twits. Now we need the other lot to realise, it is not just gate crashers we will no longer pay for, it is all bludgers.

Campbell Newman has made a little start, but it must go much further. After a local government clean out, all work shy bludgers must be dragged off the teat, as must higher education, starting with the institute of sport.

david f,
Are you just ignorant or stupid?

Any non citizen who arrives in Aus without a valid visa is committing a crime. That is the sole reason we can lock them up and, for arrivals by air, the reason we can send them back ASAP without a court hearing.

We cannot and do not detain persons who arrive legally.

Have a look at the DIAC website if you are capable of doing so.

This has been stated on OLO countless time and still some, like you, continue to post the lefties propaganda.

Butch refers to Aus citizens when he says 'our own'. The governments first responsibility is to look after our citizens. Our government is not responsibile for all the humanity in the world and neither are we.

Is it not about time you stopped voicing rubbish.

Australia was founded on boat people, and criminals as well.
When you say our own, meaning Australian citizens, it takes 9 months to manufacture an Australian citizen. No doubt there would be Australian citizens in detention, with their illegal mothers.
If these people did not arrive by boat they would be arriving by invitation, so there is no difference in numbers of new arrivals.
All this govt; wanted to do was to stop the deaths at sea, this is what Malaysia is designed to do. It made cense to trade people back to Malaysia for processed people. There would not have been any advantage of taking a boat ride. Naru will be a cattle yard, which the world will be watching, will it stop deaths at sea, remains to be seen. Will it stop boats ?

Dear Banjo,

On the DIAC website is a section on irregular maritime arrivals - arrival by boat without a visa. I saw nothing on that website about such arrival being a crime. Perhaps you should look at it. maybe you can find where such an arricval is a crime under the Australian criminal code. If you do please cite the passage.

david f - get one of your friend (from a country that require a visa) to arrive at an Australian airport without a visa and see how fast they are on the next plane back to where they came. That proves it is illegal.

Dear Philip S,

The government has the right to deport undocumented aliens. However, that does not prove it is illegal or a crime. Crimes and illegal acts are specified in the Australian criminal code. After due process of law a person is penalised if found guilty of a crime. Deportation is not a criminal penalty.

davidf,
I will not do your research for you, I have found it myself in the past.

Try under section under visa requirements or ask a travel agent/airline about visa requirements to enter Aus.

You will find it unlawfull to enter Aus without a valid visa.

As I said before lack of a valid visa is the only grounds on which we can detain any arrivals.

We issue a million, or so, visas per year so they are readily available. Those persons that arrive legally, and then apply for asylum, are free in the community whilst their application is being processed.

Hey, ask yourself why would anyone pay a smuggler many times more for a ride on a leaky boat when it is far cheaper and safer to fly?

Dear Banjo,

I don't think there is anything in the Australian criminal code that designates coming to Australia without a visa a crime. I could not find it in the website you referred me to, and I don't think it exists any place. I am not going to look further for something that I don't think is there. The boat people have done nothing illegal. If you think otherwise cite your evidence.

david f,
You made the claim that the illegals were not breaking our laws, so it is up to you to validate that claim.

Your claim is incorrect and I am sick and tired of answering such rubbish, which is simply put forward in endeavour to paint the illegals in a better light. They are shonks who con us and lie to our officials. A search will reveal that all non citizens require a valid visa to enter Aus, otherwise entry will be denied.

They do not come via the front door because of the likelyhood of being denied asylum. They want official permanent residence so they can then legally fly out the remainder of their family and get all our social services.

But some people are to dense to see that.

Dear Banjo,

If one is breaking the law one can refer to the law they are breaking. It is that simple. Australian has a criminal code which contains a list of crimes and the penalty for committing them. The people smugglers have committed a crime and have been penalised for such activity. The passengers on those boats have committed no crime. If they had they could be charged under Australian law and if found guilty they would be subject to the specified penalty.

Repetition of a statement which has no basis does not make it a fact. The boat people have done nothing illegal although they have been referred to as illegal aliens. Undocumented aliens are not illegal aliens. You apparently have no evidence you can cite to show they are acting illegally. I am getting tired of your blathering and your insultxs.

david f - use your brain think now if it was legal for all people to arrive without a visa why have the visa and most importantly the first time someone was put on a plane how the do gooders and refugees advocates would have the case in the High Court.

Dear Philip S,

Perhaps you did not read my earlier post. The government has a right to deport undocumented aliens. However, deportation is not a criminal penalty. The government also has a right to deport aliens who are here with proper documentation but who have committed crimes. After serving their sentence they may be departed.

It seems hard for some people to understand, but the boat people have committed no crime by either being on a boat coming to Australia or actually landing on Australian soil.

david f,
See how soft we are? I relented and easily found an appropriate page on the DIAC website, Please read and remember fraud is a criminal offence.

http://www.immi.gov.au/managing-australias-borders/detention/about/background.htm

To seek asylum is not a crime, unregulated asylum seekers get hard to handle. Without documentation checking out these people takes time and causes big delays. I think the govt; will take on an even slower process in Naru.
What is the consequences of Australian ships taking on these people and delivering them to another foreign port.
This will no doubt spark more court cases. Any children born there will be Naru citizens.

Dear Banjo,

I went to your reference. It did not maintain that the boat people have committed a crime. It stated:

"Immigration detention is not used to punish people. It is an administrative function whereby people who do not have a valid visa are detained while their claims to stay are considered or their removal is facilitated."

The government makes the point that 'immigration detention is not used to punish people'. If they had committed a crime punishment would be appropriate. However, being on a boat heading for Australia or even landing on Australian soil is not a crime whether or not one has proper documentation.

David f;
In case you missed it or did not understand.

It is a law incorporated in the Migration Act 1958.

If you want to look it up, 'Unlawful' has the same meaning as 'illegal'

So no ammount of spin changes anything. Arrivals without a valid visa are 'illegals'

Our migration officials are nicer than me and refer to the illegals as 'Unlawful entrants' or Irregular entrants'. Either way they are illegal and we can and do detain them.

Sheez, some people are thick.

david, can you not get it. People that arrive in Aus without a valid visa ARE BREAKING OUR LAWS and we can and do lock them up for that.

That is an offence for which they can be prosecuted in a court of law.

However, because we are nice people, if such people apply for asylum we do not proceed with prosecution. We detain them and assess (ha ha) their claim and if not successful send them packing.

Dear Banjo,

Our immigration officials are not only nicer than you, but they are also aware of what is a crime and what is not a crime. They can also spin words. I agree that unlawful is the same as illegal. However, an act is neither illegal nor unlawful unless a crime has been committed. The proper wording would be to refer to the boat people as undocumented aliens who are in detention until a determination has been made whether the government decides to allow their request for entry into Australia. They have committed no crime, and the government does not contend that they have committed a crime.

David F, every single penny spent by our governments, or should I say, wasted, is provided to them by us, Australian tax payers, so yes, we shoukd have a say in where and on what, it is spent on.

As for your assertion that we have laws, and how we deal with them, wouldnt that be nice.

Nobody knows what the time is for the crime, as most judged seem to act on how they feel on the day.

579, you seem to conveniently forget one crucial factor, LABOR CAUSED THIS MESS.

The best way to fix the illegal arrivals, is to remove what it is they come for, A FREE LUNCH.

Dear Poirot, sorry, but I just can't think like an under achiever thinks.

In all other forms of life, the more you provide, the better rewarded you are.

david f,
Look up a dictionary.

Crime: An act punishable by law

Therefore it is a crime if a non citizen enters Aus without a valid visa.

and I need a medal for patience.

Butch,
I just read that Scott Morrison said the 67 illegals on board the 'Parsifal' that forced her to go to Christmas Island, should be charged with piracy and hyjacking.

Now that would be different.

I don't expect the same call from Labor.

The sooner Morrison becomes immigration minister the better.

David f maybe I am wrong.
But I firmly think it is a crime to arrive here without papers, THAT HAVE BEEN DISCARDED.
However I too have noted the kicking you are receiving, for haveing a different opinion.

Belly, it's not so much a differing of opinion, as much as it's just plain nit picking and arguing over the most trivial point in law.
who cares if it's a crime or not, the fact is it is illegal, end of story.

"who cares if it's a crime or not..."

Surely if something is "illegal" then it "is" a crime. If it's not illegal, then it's "not" a crime...do yer reckon?

Indi, sorry for the delay, but that's a crack up, if only it were not true.

@ Poirot,

<< Surely if something is "illegal" then it "is" a crime. If it's not illegal, then it's "not" a crime...do yer reckon?>>

First day back – it's only just tolled 10AM (in the real world, east coast OZ) and you crack me up already!

Surely it matters not whether it's unllegal, unlawful or just plain awful.Since it has no consequences.

They can ditch their papers (but keep their mobile phones!)
They can blowup their boats, endangering their rescuers.
They can destroy millions of dollars worth buildings and equipment.
They can threaten and injure the facilities staff.
They can hijack ships on the high seas.

Yet authorities are unmoved, and asylum seekers are unmoved –only their advocates are moved (to tears of adulation)
So disputing its label is a bit like arguing over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin – only a pinhead would see any relevance.

Nothing is ever done …and now, we are opening a club Med in Nauru for them …no wonder they keep coming.

Butch,
Sorry to be part of sidetracking your thread, but I think it is important to speak up when one sees blatantly incorrect statements.

For too long we allow the bleeding hearts and lefties get away with potraying the illegals as poor, inocent victims, when in fact they lack moral character. They get here by lies and deceit.

They will only stop coming when we make it not worth the effort or risk.

Banjo wrote: Crime: An act punishable by law

Therefore it is a crime if a non citizen enters Aus without a valid visa.

and I need a medal for patience.

Dear Banjo,

Your logic is faulty. Crime is an act punishable by law. If a non-citizen without a valid visa enters Australia it is not an act punishable by law. He or she may be put in administration detention. As is clear on the website that is not a punishment. You don’t need a medal for patience. I do. There is no punishment by law for a non-citizen entering Australia without a valid visa.

If boat people commit a crime they should be charged by law. However, merely being a boat person is not a crime.

Dear Belly,

You and everybody else are entitled to your opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts. Administration detention is, according to the government, not a punishment, and being in Australia without proper documentation is not a crime.

Crimes are specified in the code of laws, and being in Australia without documents is not a crime. Although various people have disagreed with me no one has cited an instance of anyone who has been prosecuted or punished for being in Australia with no documents. Deportation and administration detention are not punishment. The reason that no one has been prosecuted is they have not committed a crime.

Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
• (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.
• (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

It would be a violation of article 14 to make seeking asylum whether with or without documents a crime. Australia is a signatory to the UDHR.

Dear Banjo,

The Migration Act 1958 allows for entry to Australia
without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum.

Plus, the right to enter without prior authorisation
is protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948) which Australia helped to draft.

cont'd ...

The following link may clarify a few things:

http://www.julianburnside.com.au/myths2.htm

my mother in law who helped build this country by labouring on a farm, having children in sheds with no electricity , looking after a child with down syndrome with little to no Government support and then had to wait months in hopital to get a bed in a nursing home. I should of put her on a dinghy for the navy to rescue. She would of been treated much better. Labour certainly could not give a stuff about the elderly. No wonder those who can still think don't vote for them.

@Lexi & Co,

Good old Lexi, always finding some higher source whose act of committing their name to something makes it sacrosanct (at least in Lexi’s mind!).

But sometimes it is wise to consider some of her sources past statements before swallowing their pronouncements holus bolus.

This is what Mr Burnside had to say on another issue, just recently:
“Well look I do not believe Hicks was a terrorist”
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3567053.htm

On the other hand, this is what Mr. Hicks diary says:
”Hicks kept a sort of diary of his exploits at al-Qaida training camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan…. The 30-page notebook was compiled between 2000-2002, during Hicks' training in northern Pakistan with the Lashkar-e-Toiba (Army of the Pure), a major Islamist militant organization (and recognized terrorist group ) …. the notebook contains instructions for the use of rocket-propelled grenades, simple tips for cleaning wounds or treating dysentery in the field, map reading and notes on the theory and practice of guerrilla warfare. There are also sketches of the circuitry of warheads and the mechanism of a sniper rifle's telescopic sight. Elsewhere, Hicks describes methods for penetrating the security details of "VIPs" during assassination attempts and records the details of weapons like the Heckler & Koch submachine gun and the M-16 assault rifle …Parts of the notebook are devoted to anti-Jewish invective and a paraphrased hadith (sayings and deeds of the Prophet Muhammad) concerning the destruction of the Jews prior to the Day of Judgment.”
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/trend-lines/1685/was-david-hicks-a-real-terrorist-after-all

Hmmm, I’ll let others draw their own conclusions.

Runner>> Labour certainly could not give a stuff about the elderly. No wonder those who can still think don't vote for them<<

I keep on posting this, but it is well worth remembering:

Gillard when Education minister under Rudd>>
Don't give the pensioners a pension rise, they don't vote for us anyway<<

There you have the mind set, there you have the sense of obligation, there you have scheiser.

Dear SPQR,

Whether or Hicks was a terrorist, a bad guy or an Islamic dupe is not the issue. The issue is that he was treated unfairly, tortured and denied the rights of a prisoner of war. Terrorists, bad guys and Islamic dupes are entitled to be treated fairly even if they would not treat others fairly. He was imprisoned, tortured and denied the rights of a prisoner of war, and the Australian government did not protest at the treatment of their citizen.

Regardless of Mr. Burnside's statements in other areas, it is not a crime to be an undocumented alien in Australia. Like the stopped clock that's right twice a day Burnside was right in the statements that Lexi cited.

Dear SPQR,

I gave the Julian Burnside link because the gentleman
is a barrister, a prominent Queen's Counsel, and one
of Australia's leading experts in relation to the law
and Australia's treatment of asylum seekers and the
protection of human rights. In 2009 he was awarded the
Order of Australia for his work in this area. The man
knows the law in regard to this topic. You may not like
the law - but it remains the law.

Dear David F.,

Thank You.

Lexi, lawyers and barristers don't make the law, they simply try their best to either interpret it, or distort it, depending on who they are defending.

It's funny to think arriving illegally here is not breaking the law, as you and your supporters say, but driving off without paying for your fuel is a criminal offense. Go figure!

As for the state of the buildings they are going to be housed in, our shout of cause, what about some of the conditions many of our own have to live in, maintain and clean at their expense.

We waste so much money, that we have to borrow, yet we let our own live in squalor.

What a fiasco this whole thing has become.

I think it's time we adopt the big stick approach.

Dear Davidf,

<< The issue is that [Hicks] was treated …>>

Mr Burnside said ““Well look I do not believe Hicks was a terrorist”
Now, try as I might, I cannot read(or twist) that into being anything other than a judgment as to “Whether or (not)Hicks was a terrorist”!

But be that as it may, the role David Hicks played is only a side issue. The real issue here is whether Mr Burnside saying something makes it so (as Lexi seems to think).There are clear grounds to doubt his judgment as to David Hicks role

And there are solid grounds for also doubting his judgment on the issue of the status of “asylum seekers” At the present time we are still in the fortunate position where we make the laws in this domain. And the ruling as to their status is best described by the Dept of Immigration—see below:

"The use of the word 'illegal' or 'unlawful' to describe asylum seekers entering a country without authority is standard international practice, not least by signatory states to the Refugees Convention. This is because the Refugees Convention (Article 31) explicitly refers to the "illegal entry or presence" of refugees who arrive in the territory of a country "without authorisation"."

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters04/Press_Council_28_June.htm

Dear Lexi,
Ditto.

Dear SPQR,

It is an odd contradiction that an act is called illegal, and there is no punishment prescribed by law for the act. To call an act illegal when there is no punishment by law for the act merely misuses the word, illegal. It is accurate to call them asylum seekers. All people have the right to seek asylum. However, governments or other entities can decide whether they will grant asylum. That is precisely what happens in Australia. After examining their claims the government either grants the boat people asylum or deports them if there is a place they can deported to. If not they will remain in detention. People have been killed after being deported so it seems their fears were justified. It also seems that using the word, illegal, to describe an act for which there is no legal penalty is merely using language to denigrate.

SPQR,
When I left home yesterday I thought this debate over, however I did not allow for the 'nit picking' determination of the illegals advocates to project the illegals as innocents. When in fact they are of undesirable character, who have nothing but their own desire to gate crash on our society for financial benefit. Funny how the advocates just ignore all the factual evidence.

It seems there will be a continuation of posters on forums, such as OLO, who will try to convince others that persons intending to seek asylum have a right to got wherever the like, irrespective of any other countries laws.

Therefore I will keep on file those relevant links to the DIAC that counter that incorrect view. I trust others will do likewise.

Dear Banjo,

To seek asylum and in so doing be an alien without documentation in another country is not an illegal act. There is no legal penalty for it, and it is recognised in international law as a right. You are the one who is nit-picking and ignoring the law. The country may or may not grant asylum, but seeking it is not a crime.

The DIAC site specifically states that administrative detention is not a punishment. You are the one who stubbornly refuses to recognise fact. You not only refuse to recognise fact. You ask if those who do recognise fact are ignorant or stupid.

You are the one who is incorrect, and you will stubbornly maintain your position even though the facts do not support it.

Dear Banjo,

Whether you and SPQR recognise the facts or not
is a question of your perception and comprehension.
However, the facts don't change, and they are:

1) The Migration Act 1955 allows for entry to Australia
without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum.

2) The right to enter without prior authorisation is
protected by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
which Australia helped to draft.

Dear Lexi and others, I dare you to try and arrive on Indonisias shores, uninvited, seeking a warm bed and three square meals a day, not to mention a new place to call home, which includes perks.

GOOD LUCK!

rehctub wrote, I dare you to try and arrive on Indonisias shores, uninvited, seeking a warm bed and three square meals a day, not to mention a new place to call home, which includes perks.

Dear rehctub,

Invited or uninvited. It would be very easy to arrive on Indonesia's shores and get a warm bed and three square meals a day, not to mention a new place to call home, which includes perks.

All one would have to do would be to have some pot or other narcotics. One would find oneself in an Indonesian prison. Indonesian prisons are no great shakes, but neither are Australian detention centres.

However, I would not be seeking asylum in another country since Australia is a great place to live, and my life is not threatened

Dear rehctub,

Indonesia is not a signatory to any refugee convention
as Australia is, therefore comparing the two areas is
somewhat irrelevant. Unless of course you're suggesting
that Australia tears up the agreements that she's signed.
Perhaps you do feel that "it's time for a different approach."

Lexi,

Of course he feels that Australia should tear up any agreements it's signed. That would be in keeping with our generally insular, fearful and thoroughly cosseted mindset.

Isn't it funny, we don't have enough to care for our own, yet you lot would happily open our doors to these people, without limitations.

rehctub,

You can stop the crocodile tears..."care for our own"....you're the one who consistently rails against government money going to those who might require some "care".

("The more tax one pays throughout their working life, the higher the pension they should receive.")

Dear Poirot,

As I wrote on the "un-Australian" thread.
It's often been said that the great obstacle in the
way of changing things in this country is the
conservatism of the Australian people. That may be
partly true however, I feel strongly that rather it's
been the politicians who, through their conduct and
language, have tended to politicise reforms so that
voters are unable to make balanced assessments of the
issues. The issue of asylum seekers as we know has been
politicised well and truly (as has carbon pricing et
cetera). We need a major shift in values and a belief
in our ability to take big steps.

Dear rehctub,

I agree with Poirot. You've always advocated that
"welfare is bad for business." Your view has always
been, people either sink or swim. And if they sink,
well that's too bad. Therefore your sudden concern
for social equity, compassion and the idea of an
egalitarian society - comes as a pleasant surprise.
Perhaps you're having a re-think on other issues as
well. One can only hope.

Dear rehctub,

What do you recommend Australia do with the asylum seekers? Starve them or shoot them?

What do you recommend Australia do with the international agreements that it's signed? Ignore them?

You are painting detention centres as places of luxury. They aren't. Apparently some inmates have even become mentally ill as a result of being locked up in one. Neither Canada nor the United States feels it necessary to put undocumented aliens in detention centres, and the US has millions. The government and opposition have succeeded in creating paranoia about the boat people.

Meanwhile we are destroying the environment making the land unfit by fracking, getting rid of jobs by turning workers into casuals with the insecurity that status brings, not taking adequate care of old people and not having adequate public schools. We have real problems which we can try to solve.

Meanwhile, you apparently are upset because the government feeds people and provides them with beds in the detention centres. How terrible!

Neither Canada nor the United States feels it necessary to put undocumented aliens in detention centres, and the US has millions.
david f,
I & many I know do not wish Australia to become like Canada & the US. If that's what you aspire to then be my guest & go there. If you're so keen to allow so many into Australia who don't actually subscribe to our way of life & our work ethics then you & your friends take them into your homes.
I was listening to some academic sheila on the radio yesterday who complained bitterly about boat people being detained for so long. Well, if she can convince them not to hide their papers from our immigration authorities then they could be processed a lot quicker. You see, it's literally up to them to shorten their time in detention by being open.
Once they have then reorganised themselves they can then work on getting their home country back on track rather then ruining ours. Not too unfair is it ?

Yes we should "care for our own" and "charity begins at home" and all that.

Perhaps we should set an agreed minimum standard before we spend our hard-earned money on those undeserving others.

How about no overseas assistance until every Aussie owns their own home with 2 cars and a boat (or caravan). Is that unreasonable?

It probably is to some.

The quality of life we enjoy is far above the vast majority of people in the world and is in many ways dependent on their continuing misery.

Supporting the overthrow of their governments, sponsoring continuing oppressive regimes, stripping their countries of their natural resources and rearranging their economies to make them perpetual slaves to provide us with cheap consumer goods is not a happy coincidence for us. It's been a deliberate strategy and eventually somebody will pay.

And Wobbles, all they need do is to control their breeding. Not stop, simp,y control.

You see, it can only be considered irresponsible, to continue popping out kids, knowing full well they stand a fair chance of not making it to adulthood, let alone not being able to provide for them.

So many on this site have grave concerns about population growth, not so much ours, but global.

All we are doing is giving those who can't control their breeding an option.

The fact is John Howard took the big stick approach and it worked. It may not have been liked by the greens, but it worked.

As for the greens, who cares, they live in some fantasy world, so much so, that if one proposed to build the likes of summer set dam today, they would opposse it, due to the endangerment of some frog or the likes.

These people that are arriving uninvited should be stopped.

I still believe the best way to stop them is to remove whatbthey come here for.

We are being peacefully invaded by god knows who, and they bring with them their beliefs and hates, not, all, but some. One potential terrorist is one too many in my view.

There is a right way to immigrate, and a wrong way.

The bleeding hearts simply have to accept this.

wobbles,

"...stripping their countries of their natural resources..."

I can't help but note the irony of Nauru in relation to your comment above. This island, under the jurisdiction of Australia and others, has been reduced to a pock-marked moonscape due to the exhaustive mining of phosphate. No surprise that it now hires itself out as a venue for Australia's detention centres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Nauru

Your last paragraph is spot on.

@ Wobbles,

<< Supporting the overthrow of their governments, sponsoring continuing oppressive regimes, stripping their countries of their natural resources and rearranging their economies to make them perpetual slaves to provide us with cheap consumer goods is not a happy coincidence for us. It's been a deliberate strategy and eventually somebody will pay.>.

Couldn't help but notice how similar – parrot like even -- your line is to that of other open border writers on this thread.
Did you by chance all attend the same (the little red writing) school?

@ Poirot,

<<can't help but note the irony of Nauru in relation to your comment above. This island, under the jurisdiction of Australia and others, has been reduced to a pock-marked moonscape due to the exhaustive mining of phosphate>> .

What is even more ironic is the manner in which some are wont to tippytoe around the unpalatable facts that most of the mining was done by the Nauru Phosphate Corporation (a Nauran government-owned company). And much of the resultant revenues went towards The Nauru Phosphate Royalties Trust a sovereign wealth fund developed by the government of Nauru.

Dear rehctub,

There is a right way and a wrong way to immigrate. One problem is that it is not possible for everyone to use the right way. They have to have access to an Australian embassy to apply for a visa. That is not an option open to everyone. I agree that there should be a check on uncontrolled population growth. However, funds for planned parenthood and other means to stop that growth are not a high priority in foreign aid.

In your first post you wrote about helping Australians in need.

Unfortunately a lot of what our tax money goes for has nothing to do with that.

A state funeral for Kerry Packer, the pope's visit, the visits of the royal British parasites, the invasion of Iraq, exorbitant pensions and travel allowances for pollies who always voted at their party's call, subsidies for athletic stadiums, the Olympics, the Grand Prix, the Institute of Sport, chaplains in schools, religious schools and loggers to cut down old-growth forests are some of the many things that our taxes have supported. The portion of my taxes that have gone to helping desperate people fleeing from war-torn and oppressive lands seem to me better spent than any of the above items.

The portion of my taxes that have gone to helping desperate people fleeing from war-torn and oppressive lands
david f,
very noble of you. But, wouldn't you rather see those Dollars of yours tDollars to show them so that they can live like we do & we won't need to feel so over privileged.
I rather send those people tools & crops etc & help them fight off their oppressors then send my Dollars to their countries & let the oppressors take most of it. I think monetary aid is actually highly irresponsible & more than likely the primary cause of so many oppressors rising to their positions of power. Let them try doing that with wheel barrows & shovels.
Aid must be responsible & smart not irresponsible & without foresight. Bringing the people here is fostering the dilemma , not solving it.

This string has made it evident that the government and opposition have succeeded in appealing to hate, fear and prejudice in regard to the boat people. In this world with the destruction of the environment we cannot continue with uncontrolled population growth. However, the number of boat people are a small percentage of either the normal immigrant intake or the Australia population. The politicians in the major parties have succeeded in making it a problem. The Greens who have been derided in this string want Australia to follow the conventions on refugees rather than stoking the fear, hate and prejudice in this area which is apparently the stock-in-trade of both the government and opposition.

In the past the United States has been welcome to oppressed people seeking a new life. These words are on the base of the Statue of Liberty:

The New Colossus
by Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

P...you're the one who consistently rails against government money going to those who might require some "care".

You're wrong, all I complain about is the way it is allowed to be wasted. HUGE DIFFERENCE, but nice try anyway.

Lexi, while my attitude may appear to be, sink or swim, which it's not, my concerns with welfare, is not so much that it is there, but more so that it is allowed to be taken for granted, wasted and, that much of the burden of welfare has been shifted from governments, to business, which is simply unfair and has made us non competitive in the global market.

Unfortunately, we have now climbed the hill, kicking and screaming all the way, but we have now given up, and are on the way down. There is no saving it now.

As for government policy, so much these days is linked to other reform, so one can't vote for one reform, without being forced to accept another, much like the GST.

David F ...Apparently some inmates have even become mentally ill as a result of being locked up in one

As if being locked up in a SAFE detention centre could be any worse than the fear of being bombed at any time. You're kidding!

As for what to do, simply remove what it is they are coming for. Once the carrot is removed, the people smugglers, THE REAL PROBLEM will have nothing to sell.

As for the likes of the US and Canada, they are accepted and used as slave labor, because unlike us, it's a case there of work for what ever, or starve.

Then .....Meanwhile, you apparently are upset because the government feeds people and provides them with beds in the detention centres. How terrible!

As I say, once our own are looked after, go for your life. Remember, of the hundred thousand plus homeless we have, not one is a boat person in a DC.

Continued

David F, continued

As for the casualization of our workforce, now there's a joke. Brought on by labor and the unions who simply can't accept that for every action, there's a reaction, and casual employment is the reaction to their he'll bent plan to protect workers rights,at any cost and with little or no regard for the risk takers who provide, or should I say, PROVIDED the secure jobs. A plan that has simply backfired, big time.
Y
You wanted it, you got it, so you now have to deal with it and believe me, it will never change until these ridiculous IR laws are banished for good.

When a person wants a job, and another person wants to provide one, why should big brother have to step in.

As I say, your problem, as you and your beloved labor/unions have caused it.

At least with a casual, pushed from pillar to post, doing irregular shift/hours, not really knowing where their next shift is coming from, a business owner has the freedom to pick and choose staff, when a better one comes along, much the same way as a worker can pick and choose a job.

If only governments were capable of running a business, they may have picked up on this before they acted. But, it's simply to late now, as casual/contract is the new norm.

Better get a grip on that one mate.

Dear rehctub,

I appreciate you. You do not denigrate the people you argue with or put them down. You do not use insulting language or imply that your opponents are deficient in any way. I wish you well.

In the past the United States has been welcome to oppressed people seeking a new life.
david f,
Nothing wrong with offering people a new life but that's not what's happening here now, is it ? When Customs boat crew asked several people what bad conditions they escaped from, the answer was "none really, we just want to go to Australia.
We're not talking about refugees, we're talking about agenda driven people forcing their way to Australia under the pretence of refugee status.
David if you feel you can handle living in the noise ridden life style that many of these people want to impose upon us you'd better try a month in their country first.