Foxy,

I think you have proved what I said. 2008, you say?

That colossal interfering fool Kevin Rudd had already destroyed Howard's Pacific Solution, thus creating mess the LNP was recently elected to stem which is the flow of illegal immigrants.

In 2008 Labor Immigration Minister Chris Evans was practicality in tears because he had 'too much power and had to make decisions affecting individuals' - illegal immigrants one would assume and people with poor criminal histories who were trying to enter under the legal system. How can a government department handle a minister who is reluctant to take and be responsible for decisions delegated to him?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-02-19/i-have-too-much-power-immigration-minister/1047184

Of course the briefing sheets put out by the bureaucracy are in tune with the spin of the minister and government at the time.

Referring yet again to the historical fact that it was Arthur Caldwell, the man you frequently malign, who went against precedent to offer your parents and other Lituanians sanctuary, work and a home for as long as they chose in Australia, I would like to see you prove otherwise, but it would be kind to his memory and truthful if you at least admitted that fact instead of constantly sidestepping it.

otb,

I don't side-step anything.

Firstly, presenting you with historical facts is in no way
meant to denigrate Australia or its people. It's merely
stating the conditions and government policies that
existed at a particular given time in this country's history.

Now - regarding Mr
Caldwell's motives as to why he travelled to Europe seeking
the "Beautiful Balts." Offering "Sanctuary" was not
his reason for going to Europe at that time. He saw an
opportunity and he took it. Australia at the time had an
acute labour shortage and Mr Caldwell saw a way that this
problem could be solved.

Australia was the last country to enter the
International Refugee Organization's re-settlement Scheme and
political rhetoric aside, "economic expedience was by far the
stronger motivation." (C. Panich (1988) "Sanctuary?
Remembering post-war immigration," p. 137).
The Australian government
contributed only ten pounds ($20) towards each migrant's
fare. The rest of the passage was paid by various
non-Australian welfare agencies.

I stress again - that most post-world war II -
Lithuanian immigrants came to
Australia (1949) - as indentured labour.
Every single migrant
over the age of 18 had to enter into a two year contract with
the Australian government which obliged the migrant to
work wherever directed. And the contracts were strictly
enforced, even if it meant that families were split up -
(N. Klaassen (1997). "Leigh Creek: An Oasis in the Desert,"
pp.157-158).

I won't go into the details of the early conditions of
migrant settlement and how inadequate they were
or how all Lithuanian migrants were
classified.

The fact remains that on arrival in this country, the 10,000
Lithuanians had joined other migrants in the re-building of
Australia's capital structures that were to serve the nation
for many decades to come.

The same migrants could have
accomplished a great deal more, if the Australian authorities
had made full use of their skills and knowledge, instead of
treating them all as unskilled labour. (S. Marginson (1997a)
"Educating Australia: Government, economy and citizen since
1960," p. 17). Nevertheless, their economic contribution was
significant at a time when Australia needed it most.

cont'd ...

otb,

BTW - I have never "maligned" Mr Caldwell. Neither have any of
the historians who covered the part he played in this
country's history. Reporting historical events is not
"maligning." Those were the conditions that existed at
that time.

Foxy,

What is true is that Arthur Caldwell was reportedly so taken by the suffering of the Lithuanians he saw in a camp that he made the offer.

Here is a photo of immigrant Lituanians presenting a gift of thanks to Arthur Caldwell, Immigration Minister, on the deck of the KANIMBLA.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/anmm_thecommons/8400302435/

Regarding work available to the Lituanians, as has been pointed out to you on numerous occasions before, the available work was part of the arrangement. They were damned lucky to get work too, it was something de-mobbed Australian troops didn't get automatically. Read their history. Also, in post WW2 Australia which was desperately trying to recover from its total conversion to war production to save Europe, the industry being developed pre-WW2 had been destroyed.

Honestly now, what jobs do you reckon were available? Do you think someone should have waved a magic wand?

The Lituanians were the first large immigrant group to arrive after WW2. No nation, NONE, was prepared for the influx from WW2. That includes Europe. Australia was well-intentionsed and generous. Without doubt, Australia has a proud record in respect of the Lituanians.

I am constantly astounded by those who would judge the migrant facilities, support and assistance of countries immediately post WW2 against what is available to migrants in modern Australia.

You really should check with those who fled Europe immediately after war's end (WW2) on their expectations. The victimhood baggage you carry on their behalf is unnecessary, and plain wrong.

Apologies for the misspell of Lithuanians that crept in.

otb,

I stand by the historical facts and references given
in my post. I have no wish to discuss this topic with
you any further because I can see that it is a total
waste of my time. You seem to think that I am somehow
denigrating this country. I am not.

Cheers.