Surely the words 'boarder protection' have a meaning.

For me, protecting our boarders should mean just that, and they should be protected by any means.

If the prefered action is to process these illegals, then the wording needs to be changed, as what this government is currently doing is not protecting our boarders.

There is an illusion of boarder protection only it implies stop or detect everyone, problem is a lot of the boats arrived at various ports or Islands without even being detected.
One even had to call 000 just outside Christmas Island port for the authorities to even realize it was there.

Years ago they spent Million on an over the horizon radar - white elephant

The major media have stopped reporting most arrivals now it is so common it is not newsworthy.

Gawd!

If you want to protect your boarders, then make sure your house has good security, feed them well and make sure they're in by 10 o'clock on weeknights (maybe 11 on weekends)....

(still no editing on the discussion thread headers!)

"Surely the words 'boarder protection' have a meaning.
For me, protecting our boarders should mean just that, and they should be protected by any means."

They do have a meaning, but as with lodgers they are marginal renters and so are not directly covered by the several state Residential Tenancies Acts.

It not being a federal matter, if in doubt of status or definition, contact your state's Tenants Advisory Bureau or Service.

The clowns are out - you know he meant BORDER not boarder. Don't tell me you have never made a mistake.

I have one 3 threads down I meant Hairbrained but put it down wrong.

Get a life or people will start pointing out all your mistakes.

Sorry, Phil - couldn't resist (I've bitched here before about the headers for this section being displayed unedited in all their typoed glory)

Anyway, I think we've got enough threads moaning about boat people (how many threads on one subject can we stand?)...one about the plight of boarders might have served as a change of pace.

Cheerio

Lol Poirot! A good chat about boarders may indeed give us a change of pace!

As for Australia's borders, I doubt we could ever watch all of our vast coastline at all times.
At the end of the day, Australia is part of the larger world community, and we have to deal with asylum seekers and refugees just as all other countries do.

Let's just have some effective policies to shut all the moaning down, and get on with it.

I too am heartily sick of this subject, and climate 'change' too!

Poirot - You are right about the headers I must admit due to haste, I am guilty of making a few of them.

I do get a little too serious when people attack the mistakes mainly because some do it in a holier than though way, but the 2 above were not of that variety. A overreaction on my part - sorry.
A little light humor does make reading more enjoyable.

Strange how the spellchecker works in the body of the thread but not the header.

Also right about the threads nearly 3 in a row about the welfare for lifers.

I'm a good one for typos - make 'em all the time. I'm fairly good at spelling though - and even though I feel confident with spelling, I often check a word if I'm not sure....so on the whole I don't tend to be pedantic about spelling in the body of posts. However, for some reason the headers get right up my nose because the spelling mistake or typo glares right out at you.

(I think I'll have to get out more :)

Suseonline - Quote "I too am heartily sick of this subject, and climate 'change' too!" I would say everyone is sick of the refugee situation, even the media are not reporting them much now.
I would prefer not to waste my time reporting and starting threads about them BUT when people become complacent about issues Governments tend to then try to do things hoping people will not care.

Also they release information at strategic times to have reporting of it buried in the back pages. The perfect example was the report about 85% of refugees still on welfare after being here for 5 years it was released the same day as the Royal wedding, story was effectively kept off the front pages.

>>I have one 3 threads down I meant Hairbrained but put it down wrong.<<

And you've just done it again. Not having much luck spelling harebrained today are you?

Cheers,

Tony

As rehctub has not been back to post a correction and since he refers to "boarders" on no less than 4 occasions, we must assume he is genuinely concerned about his boarders and not his borders . This is reinforced by Phil who also wants those boarders protected. As some poster from the right was quick to jump on a grammatical error, of mine recently, I take great pleasure in tipping the bucket on members of 'Fortress Australia". I say lock up them boarders, and make sure they pay their rent on Friday's. Are they Muslim?

Sroy abuot taht but I hvae alawys thugohgt sepellnig is oevr rated.

Evidence being in that not only did you all know what I meant, but you can also read the line above.

Now as for a flogged topic, I agree, but this is a very serious issue and one that could potentially break us as a nation.

If you think the cut backs we are seeing now are a result of the much flogged GFC, think again.

This could cost us more than any war we have ever faught and will effect new borns to pensioners and everyone in between if not stopped, or at least managed in an affordable way.

As stated, 85% are still on welfare. That's our welfare, not their welfare as they have not paid taxes here.

Labor should be remind of this subject every single day from now till the forthcoming election, as it is they who have caused this mess, but it is we, the tax payer that will ultimately have to provide the funding, which of cause, means going without ourselves.

In fact, the front page of every newspaper should have an up to date count of just how many illegals labor has let into our countries waters, and how many of our tax dollars are being wasted with daily updates, as the people who pay the taxes deserve to know where their taxes are going and more importantly, why their entitlements are being eroded and for what cause.

No amount of pussy footing around will fix this.

There is a supposed 40 million people on the move. Our share doesn't look all that bad.

<< …this is a very serious issue and one that could potentially break us as a nation. >>

Absolutely rehctub.

The facilitation of open borders by our government is moving into extremely dangerous territory. As our various resource stresses manifest themselves in the face of a still absurdly rapidly growing population, this onshore asylum seeking business is going to really exacerbate the stresses and very possibly lead to us into extremely perilous territory as a nation.

It has GOT to be stopped. We MUST confine our humanitarian efforts, including refugee assistance and international aid, to within our formal immigration and aid programs.

If Abbott says he will do this, then despite his complete lack of nous on sustainability issues, I would be strongly inclined to vote for him at the next opportunity, because Labor is just not cutting it! They are farting around the edges and not taking decisive action… and costing us billions in the process.

And yes, I share some peoples’ concerns about spelling errors in the titles of general threads. I just can’t understand how each thread can be vetted without glaring errors being corrected in the title. Don't worry about the rest of the post, but surely the title has got to be right! It does not look good on this professional and otherwise excellent forum.

The neon "Welcome to Wonderful Centrelink" beams across the seas brighter than the Southern Aurora and lighting the welcome mat put out by the Greens/Labor government.

It is abundantly obvious that Australians as represented by the Australian government, have no bottle for maintaining and defending their borders. It is also a disarmed nation that keeps only a small defence force. Those are enticements to countries who are greedy for the wealth of Australia and want room for their population to expand.

For decades it has been abundantly clear that we are locked into a worldwide redistribution of populations and wealth. A huge outcry from the general public over homelessness in Australia has resulted in a short term decision to process "asylum seekers" on Nauru, Manus Island and Indonesia.

I don't think it will be long before the UN decides that offshore processing is to be outlawed altogether. This will certainly help to bring all nations down to the lowest common denominator, with the middle class continuing to shrink, more people being driven into poverty, and a rich ruling class collecting most of the bounty.

No doubt you all heard last week that the UN has also decided that the developed nations must compensate the third world to the tune of $100 billion for causing Global Warming. With an increasing number of indirect taxation mechanisms in place, even the poorest Australian is a regular contributor to the economic growth of other nations.

But the point, rehctub, is that it was spelt correctly. The word was also used in correct context three times in your opening post. Add to that your previous complaints about the costs of accommodation due to mining and I believed my reply was – and still is – totally on topic.

The lesson I've now learnt is to assume you don't mean what you write – even if the spelling is correct.

Be cautious on the 'tax-payer' stuff. The colonies have never been out of debt since my great-great-great grandfather was transported, nor the Commonwealth since 1911, so technically anyone under 101 years of age has benefited from others' largesse.

PhilipS got it right the first time.

Some have seized on the meaning of BOARDER as one who rents a room.

However, BOARDER also carries a meaning of one who boards a ship. And it's this meaning which is apt here.

Picture one of those 1950s Errol Flynn movies where a peaceful merchant ship is coasting through tranquil sun-kissed seas. It receives a distress signal from another ship, pulls alongside to offer assistance, and a horde of ruffians --brandishing cutlasses and muskets -- appear out of nowhere and BOARD it demanding it take them to where they want to go(Somewhat akin to what happen to the Tampa and the Viking Princess).

In the first instance the BOARDERS are usually mild mannered persons who pay their host rent.
In the second, the BOARDERS are bribing, bullying, brigands who'll stop at nothing, and usually end up extracting a rent (lifelong board and lodging for them and all their kin) from their host.

And it's the latter type of BOARDER we need protection FROM. And we are not getting it from the present administration.

SPQR,

In that case, perhaps we should institute a broader boarder border?

But SPQR, that won't apply because the first post said,

"For me [rehctub], protecting our boarders should mean just that, and they should be protected by any means."

Which is the opposite of what you are suggesting.

You can laugh, joke and take the piss out of me all you like, as you won't offend me for makimg a simple spelling error.

However, call it what you like, but the imaginary line that defines where Australian waters begin is simply not being adequately policed and, if left as is, we will all pay.

God help us if and when they bring guns, cause we can't stop them when they are unarmed.

This mess must be stopped by what ever means necessary. Spell check please!

I'm not taking the piss out of your spelling - you spelled "boarder" correctly....it's just that you employed the wrong homonym for your point.

However, I think I am taking the piss out of your paranoia....and the fact we have numerous threads in the general discussion section, close together - all ranting about the same thing.

@Bonjour Poirot,

Yes, "boat people"/refugees/asylum seekers are, in comparative terms, a very minor problem, there's very little that any liberal democratic society can do. Those people who become rather hyper about the non-existent 'crisis' should try yoga or tai chi or increase the dosage.

I couldn't have resisted "boarder" either, a few months ago I was called "anti-emetic" when I criticised Israel--I had a lot of fun with that.

However, it's always wise to remember the expression "People in Glass Houses."

Tony Lavis - sorry to disappoint you but if you check the word it has a number of different spellings, mine is right (except for the thread heading one) and yours is right. American English & English English.

@ Poirot,
<<In that case, perhaps we should institute a broader boarder border?>>

Or perhaps we just need fewer broads in boarder protection

…………………………………………………………………………………..

@ Mac,

It has apparently missed your notice that we didn’t have anything like the current inflow illegal boaties till Julia and Kevin (labors Ken and Barbie act) decided they were going to garner some brownie points with the UN and unravel the border controls.

PlilipS,
How could I have missed the article which said 85% on welfare after 5 years.

I have a very good suggestion regarding border protection. As we can't seem to stop them coming, how about creating a law that says we will take them if they agree to sterilisation?

Laws have been put in place to make sterilisation for cats and dogs mandatory in this state. Theoretically this will create a reduction in population numbers, and unwanted anilmals becoming feral.

Guess I'll get some castigation for this suggestion to mitigate the social effect and financial burden on this country these illegal's have caused. But the truth stands. Like Fiji and England, in years from now we will be a minority group in the country we've built.

So we're all tired of this subject? We shouldn't be - there will be future repercussions if we aren't more vigilant.

mac Quote "Yes, "boat people"/refugees/asylum seekers are, in comparative terms, a very minor problem,"

I would not call refugees costing us $6.6 Billion dollars for the financial year 2012/13 a minor problem. Also take into account that if the numbers arriving increase dramatically as has happened in the past 3 months that figure will certainly blow out.

That figure does not include hundreds of millions of dollars for the navy taxi service.

Also the hidden costs of the money given to the charities that look after them in the community at taxpayer expense.

STILL THINK IT IS A MINOR PROBLEM.

SPQR,

No, it hasn't escaped my notice. To avoid the "post hoc" fallacy, we would have to examine the conditions in the refugees' countries of origin prior to and during the Rudd/ Gillard government. Push factors are far more important than Oz government policies in attracting refugees. Anyone who is prepared to undertake a statistical analysis and compare the relative effectiveness of Coalition and Labor "Border Protection" policies is welcome to try.

I can confidently predict that, if the Coalition wins the next election, the border protection "crisis" will suddenly disappear from the MSM, even if the number of refugees increased.

However, I think I am taking the piss out of your paranoia

Paranoia you say.

So tell me, considering we are borrowing every single day just to provide for our own, because our tax system has failed to provide sufficient funding, at what point do you think we should be worried about this issue?

More importantly, where do you suggest we cut funding from here on in to fund this issue?

Believe me, there is nothing paranoid about worrying about something that is out of control and getting bigger week after week.

As I say, it should be front page news every day just to remind us what sought of a mess these fools created.

mac - You failed to answer the post directly above you last one.

DO YOU STILL THINK IT IS A MINOR PROBLEM?

SPQR,

(I think it's worth a grammatical faux pas for the following)

Reading your prose just makes me boreder and boreder.

Philip S,

We only have 4 comments, so I was going to wait to reply to other commenters, however since you're becoming agitated.

(1) Compared to the enormous economic costs of a high rate of LEGAL immigration, the expense of processing refugees is relatively small.

(2) If we treat the arrival of refugees as a major problem, costs will rise accordingly, your assumption that processing refugees is invariably expensive is not necessarily correct. We've probably made it hugely expensive because of both the Labor and the Howard governments' harebrained and inhumane offshore processing regimes.

mac,

Although you only get four comments in 24 hours in the articles' section, you get eight in the general discussion section...(I think)

mac - Thanks for the answer. here it is 8 per 24 hours.

Quote "the expense of processing refugees is relatively small." the processing is not the issue.

2012/13 year the projected cost of the refugees is $6.6 BILLION dollars that does not include hundreds of millions of dollars for our navy and air force to sit in the middle of the ocean till they call 000 and asked to be picked up hundreds of KM's inside Indonesian waters.

Also the thousands that are due to be released into the community and looked after by the charities IT IS THE TAXPAYER who will pay the money not the charity.

You release thousands NO HOMELESS REFUGEES and where are the houses coming from - up goes private rental Government does not care how much it pays for the houses after all it's not there's it is TAXPAYERS again.

Projected arrivals for next year 30,000 last month alone there were 2,600.

Poirot, Phillip S,

Didn't know, thanks.

Phillip S,

I'm definitely not comfortable with the present situation but my position is that there's very little that that Australia as a liberal democracy can do unless we tow the boats back out to sea. Both the Government and Opposition won't admit that obvious fact for different reasons. The present surge has more to do with the end of the Sri Lankan civil war than any soft policies of the Labor government. Even if the present policies are a deterrence, given the ignorance of the refugees and the unscrupulous behaviour of the people smugglers it might take years for a reduction to occur.

I'd need more info on the method of costing armed forces involvement before I expressed an opinion, the RAN and RAAF would be still undertaking exercises if they were't intercepting refugees and running up huge bills.( We need a Coast Guard BTW).

@ Poirot,

<<SPQR,…Reading your prose just makes me boreder and boreder.>>

Was your "boreder" a miss spelling of bawdier?

Look, now you’ve gone and given Mac your lurgy:
"We can’t do this ...And we shouldn't do that".
Next thing you know he’ll be channelling Naomi Klein too!

Gee-whiz, what a right pair of Baudelaires.

At least the Government is doing one thing right they are going to cut foreign aid by $375 million to pay for the welfare for lifers, now all they have to do is cut it from Indonesia and Malaysia because they are they ones who let them in knowing they are going to Australia.

SPQR,

It's a very contagious lurgy and one of the side effects is that people leave the Dark Side and become Social Democrats, some of the most severely afflicted even become Multiculturalists.

Mac,

<<It's a very contagious lurgy and one of the side effects is that people leave the Dark Side and become Social Democrats, some of the most severely afflicted even become Multiculturalists>>

The symptom’s you described above occur during the early stages. Usually, exhibiting within 24 hours on contact with a carrier. When the disease progresses to the terminal stage the victim finds it impossible to mouth any criticism of Islamacists –though they are inclined to rant about the slightest indiscretion from any other group , cannot recognise racism except where it comes in a white colour and has a tendency to fly off the handle at the mere mention of the name “George Bush” --all of which are very much apparent in classic case study of patient P (full name withheld)–can you believe we even had to employ a quite unorthodox therapy to help her cope with the latter!

But look Mac, fear not, you're only in the early stages yet, so there is still hope for a remission. Well over 90% of those who come down with the lurgy exhibit a full recovery -- as evidenced by the huge numbers of former social democrats who now vote conservative.

PS here’s a little something to speed you on your way to recover:
http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/160459441

Yours sincerely
Sigmund

We already hold what they call 'war games' so why not hold them in these waters. At the very least, that amou t of activity would be some what intimidating, don't you think.

As for cutting foriegn aid, hurrah, it's about time.

However, at the end of the day, we, the tax paying VOTERS need more say in what elected, or non elected governments do with our taxes.

The present system sees our democratic rights taken away from us once we exit the polling booth, and that is something that needs to be changed.

There needs to be a mechanism that allows us, the voting public to call for a change if and when governments loose the plot, as we have sat back, powerless, for too long now while this debarcle has unfolded.

I have been away for a couple of days. I just wish to inquire is the room still to let. I am a person of temperate habits, non smoker and one of sober disposition. There is only Fifi my cat and I. References can be supplied on request. I should mention I am a member of the Uptwiddle Brass Band and Folk Dancers. I play the second tuber, will however need to practice 5 nights a week, at home, can not see a problem with that.

Paul 1405

Being careful about playing with your “tuber” too much. I've heard tell it can adversely affect one's eyesight.

>>I play the second tuber<<

I know you can whistle using gum leaves and make simple percussion instruments from gourds but how do you get music out of a potato?

Cheers,

Tony

How about this?

Boarder
Border
Boreder

SPQR,

I can assure you, that even though I'm a chronic Social Democrat, I'm completely immune to the Multicultural virus.

Now, what was the topic?

Sorry SPQR a 'typo' I ment to type spud not tuber.
Lorikeet, I prefer to use the French word for boarder, bordello.
I demand the governement protect our bordellos otherwise Australia will turn into a brothal!