From today Sunday 16th until Saturday 20th June, Australia will be celebrating Refugee Week, with events planned to showcase the valued contributions that many refugees make to Australian society.

Unfortunately, too much is made of the bad aspects of what some refugees do in Australia, and little is ever mentioned of the positively good contributions made by many others. To help others understand refugees, here are some facts;

* There are 68.5 million people in the World who could be classed as refugees, over 50% are children. Australia takes in 18,750 annually.

* Between 70% and 90% of people entering Australia without prior notice, and who are subsequently detained are found to be genuine refugees.

* The countries suffering most economically (based on GDP), because of refugees are to be found in Africa. On an economic bases Australia comes 94th in the World.

Dear Paul,

Thank You for this discussion.

The topic of refugees means a great deal to me.
My parents were refugees. They fled their country after
the Soviet regime occupied it during World War II.
I was born in Australia.

I am aware of the importance
of the organised Refugee Week events and their aim
being to create a better understanding between our
different communities. It's a very worthwhile goal.

It encourages successful integration, better understanding,
and helps refugees to feel safer,
more welcome, and thereby helps them to continue making
their valuable contributions to this country.

A win/win situation.

I remember reading the book, "Walking Free," written by
Dr Munjed Al Muderis about his experiences as a "boat
person" arriving in this country and
what he had to go through
and experience.

Dr Munjed Al Muderis today is an Australian Associate Professor
in Orthopaedic Surgery, an author, and a human rights
activist. His pioneering work on prosthetics and patients
on titanium devices that he designed - places Australia
today at the fore-front of osseointegration technology (for
amputees). He was born on the 25th June 1972 in Iraq.

He's one of many who's made such a difference to the lives
of people in this country and overseas.

We tend to ignore we are all refugees
From The convict era , gold rush days till the post ww2 inflow that made us great
Too that many complaining about refugees are the children or grandchildren of refugees

Dear Paul,

If there are 68.5 million people in the world who could be classed as refugees and Australia takes in 18,750 annually, this means that it rejects/blocks/turns-back/locks-up 68,481,250 refugees. Even among those 18,750 who do arrive, if 70%-90% are detained, this means an extra 13125-16875 refugees who are scarred for life with the experience of prison.

You may say that this is unavoidable - perhaps, but it certainly is not a nice record to be proud of and celebrate.

Dear Paul,

I've just got hold of the book, "Always Another
Country: A Memoir of Exile and Home," by African
author Sisonke Msimang. What an incredible read.
An incredible journey. I highly recommend it to all.
Very relevant to the understanding of refugees.

Being silly Yuyutsu, the vast majority of the 68.5 million have no contact, or come under no scrutiny, from Australian officials what so ever. Therefore there is no rejecting, blocking, turning back or locking up by Australia of 68,481,250 (your figure) refugees.

You well know most of the 18,750 refugees we do take arrive through normal channels, and only a small percentage arrive unannounced, end of story.

This week gives us an opportunity to hear about the successful new lives being made by refugees after adversity suffered in their homelands. Like Rnita a young girl who arrived in Sydney in 2015 with her family, after fleeing the war in Syria. The family escaped to Lebanon, and eventually through the UNHCR were resettled in Australia. Rnita is a young person doing Business Studies at Swinburne University, and when qualified will have many opportunities presented to her. While studying Rnita is working for the Refugee Council of Australia in a communications role with newly arrived refugee families.

Yuyutsu,

Australia has an annual refugee quota, as you rightly point out: around 18,750, perhaps plus some special extreme cases.

But what makes you think they are ('80-90 %') detained ? They have done all the right things, filled out all the right forms, and waited their turn. Out of 68 million, one could suppose that perhaps 1 % (680,000) have done that. And waited. And waited. Most of them would not have the ten grand to pay a smuggler, having, as my sweet little old very-refined English grandmother would say, not even a pot to piss in. Well, she WAS from the North.

Are you confusing legal and illegal refugees/boat-people/economic would-be migrants ?

For all the hoo-ha, Australia has a more generous refugee-intake policy that either the US (no surprise there) and NZ (big surprise !). Yes, that surprised me too.

As mechanisms for integrating genuine refugees satisfactorily improve, I'm all in favour of increasing the annual genuine refugee intake - it's what all countries should be doing. Not dramatically, but in step with the means of coping, and integrating people happily.

Joe

I think every Australia day is a time to celebrate every refugee, every other immigrant, every first person, every convict making this nation such a magnet to millions and millions. 1000 cheers!

Dear Paul and Joe,

Sorry for the mix-up: I wrongly misread the first post as if the 70%-90% figure pertained to the earlier-mentioned 18,750 refugees rather than only to those who come without notice.

On the topic, I do not believe it to be the role of government to make immigration quotas: it should only be for the people of Australia, individuals and charitable organisations, to determine who and how many come (and obviously to guarantee and provide from their own pockets that those who arrive do not disadvantage the rest of us financially). The role of government ought to be restricted to making sure that those who do arrive do not bring with them diseases, crime or terrorism.

As for those who arrive uninvited, they should not be detained (other than perhaps for an initial quarantine period to ensure that they do not pose health, crime or terrorism risks) or sent back, but rather have the status of animals, human-animals, with the appropriate rights and protections as per RSPCA guidelines. Otherwise, it is abhorrent that animals who arrive on our shores uninvited are treated better than humans who do!

I think that the past decade has shown that an orderly refugee intake is far better than the shambles of boat ferrying (and drowning) queue jumpers and economic migrants.

Albanese is already showing his true colours on illegals by dragging up the New Zealand offer to take illegals from Nauru and Manus.

Yep. A short stay in NZ, then it's open sesame to Australia. We have too much riffraff from that country now that we have to go to expense and trouble of deporting.

Albanese needs to be taught quickly that, while an opposition is necessary in a democracy, it is not supposed to be suggesting policy; particularly with Labor's record on encouraging illegal entrants in the past.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The English word "better" has a dual meaning - one means "more proper", "more righteous", "more moral", whereas the other means "more pleasant", "more comfortable", "more convenient".

The original connection was forgotten, that if one behaves righteously then in the long run, perhaps even the very long run, perhaps even after they die, they end up with pleasure and comforts. Many today do not even believe this to be the case, but somehow they still kept the word ambiguous.

It is indeed more pleasant and convenient when refugees arrive in an orderly manner, it is nice if it happens this way, but in real life this is not what refugees do and it is improper to lock people up or to send them back against their will - that is violence!

While we are not OBLIGED to do anything to help refugees (other than due to this stupid refugee-convention, which should be abandoned because nobody is truly willing to abide by it), we can still help refugees through the goodness of our heart, to any extent we want. Our generosity may be limited, which is fine, but at least we must avoid violence.

As for uninvited economic migrants, the way to handle them is to grant them animal rights instead of human rights. Since animals have no right to property and its protection, what is the point in economic migration if they cannot keep property and it is quite legal for anyone, including banks, to take away any money they accumulated? Anyone could even grab them and chain them up to a kennel, cage them as pets or work them out as farm animals. Farmers could even shoot them as pests or for their meat, so long as they do so quickly and painlessly (I don't recommend they do, but this would not be illegal). And if they drown when they try to come to Australia, well this is then their own doing!

Albanese has clearly learned nothing from the election. The LNP did not win; the ALP lost because of its policies, including their open-border treachery and the threat to increase the number of country shoppers they allow into Australia legally. Since the election, he has also made the awful blunder of appointing Sentor Kenneally as Dutton’s opposite.

Apologists and barrackers for country shoppers posing as refugees tend to be the kind of people who find most fault with our society - how ‘intolerant’ we are; what racists we are; what white supremacists we are. And, of course, the totally inappropriate types they favour are never settled near them.

Dear Ttbn,

Yes, the ALP lost because of their policies, but which exact policies contributed to their loss and which policies actually mitigated their loss, this we shall never know because Australians are not allowed to vote on policies, but are rather made to vote through the cumbersome straitjacket of parties of which only two can practically win.

Y,

Under labor more than 1200 died as the flimsy boats sank. Is that less violent than turning boats back?

Dear Shadow Minister,

«Under labor more than 1200 died as the flimsy boats sank. Is that less violent than turning boats back?»

Other people's stupidity and the acts of nature are not an act of violence, at least not of mine or purported under my name.

The pig-headed Kenneally is still backing the medivac legislation - which we have thanks to another silly woman who was in parliament for only a few months - saying that people are 'entitled' to get medical care. What! People with no right to our health system; people trying to get into our country illegally, have the 'right' to treatment that many Australians have to wait for years to get, if they get it a all, in their own country!

It was a bad day indeed when this American woman was granted the Australian citizenship that allowed her to enter parliament.

Paul if nothing else you gave the usual suspects some place to land
Labor lost, its base has been drifting away from 2013 ALBO will bring it back
That tin shed, HQ of the brand new security firm om Manus, love to see the share holders list
Albo has an asset, see the policies set out by Scomom, he never thought he would win
Now he must TRY to implement them

Y,

So if you let children play near a croc infested river you bear no responsibility for the kids that get killed?

Labor has blood on its hands.

SM,

Lives have been lost at sea under both
Labor and the Coalition.
Labor has admitted its mistakes.

During Refugee Week perhaps a good project
would be to find out how many refugees and
asylum seekers have died while in Australian
Immigration Detention on Manus and Nauru?

'The pig-headed Kenneally is still backing the medivac legislation - which we have thanks to another silly woman who was in parliament for only a few months - saying that people are 'entitled' to get medical care'

yep ttbn the public just got rid of Banks and Phelps and now we have another daugther of the abs Kenneally thrust in us.

Dear Shadow,

«So if you let children play near a croc infested river you bear no responsibility for the kids that get killed?»

Your children or other people's children?

Preventing people from being hurt by natural causes may at times be a good deed, but not always, certainly not when it is done for selfish motives against the will of those "saved": doing so is called "parentalism", assuming of course that you are not truly their parent.

Around 100 families in Sydney are presently devastated, having been forcibly evacuated from their homes - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06-15/mascot-towers-evacuation-leaves-residents-in-tears/11213422

This is cruel parentalism, this is absolutely violent and absolutely unacceptable whereas the structural forces of concrete are not. While these people were correctly informed about the chances of their building collapsing, it was a terrible act to drag them out onto the streets. The choice should always rest with them.

It is only your unfounded belief, superstition rather, as if life is always preferable to death: the problem being that you seem to consider yourself to know better than others, to an extent that somehow allows you to control their lives as well as their deaths.

Nobody has blood on their hands unless they either meant to kill or neglected their duty. Invented "duties" are no more real than monopoly-money. Playing to be a Shadow Minister is one thing, playing God is yet another.

runner,

Tony Abbott also lost his seat to a woman.
I wonder who shall be next?

Interesting times ahead.

Yep Foxy Tony did. Thank God he left the legacy of stopping drowings and illegals as well as got rid of the breathing tax. We can all be thankful for his legacy.

Tony, the bloke who just lost his seat?
Because his base wanted him gone?
Never mind he will get a job for the boys if not from his party its owner Rupert Murdock

runner,

The legacy of Tony Abbott?

He was the best Leader of the
Opposition the country has ever seen.

His
relentless campaign of negativity, partisan
bashing, backed by a partisan media worked. All he
knew how to do was to be an attack dog and he was good
at it. The culture of blaming Labor for everything
has remained, as well as the culture of fear, loathing and
division - still lives on today.

Steggall will be around for three years. Unlike Kenneally, she has no experience, and she is an independent. She would have expected Labor to be in government, but will be less use than a pinch of the proverbial to her electorate and the country in general with a continuing LNP government. And, unlike the voters of Wentworth, who were able to rectify their mistake in a short time, the people of Warringah are stuck with their mistake for the duration.

They were stuck with Abbott for how long?

Steggall should be a refreshing change.

I wonder who shall be next?

A Tranny ?

My money's on Barnaby Joyce.

We should use refugee week to reassess our refugee intake because we are taking far too many of the legal ones and being dictated to by the UN.
Sure we have stopped the boat arrivals but many are still arriving by plane as tourists and then seeking asylum, and while being assessed they are free to do as they like. Not good enough!

Not only should we look at their health and criminal record but also their culture. Those groups that have shown that they, or their off spring, have a poor record of integrating and have caused us trouble should be classed as ineligible. We do not need to import those that will not be part of our society.

We should only allow those migrants and refugees that will be of benefit to our community.

Dear HenryL.,

Unless we are Indigenous we are all immigrants.
But it seems that we're suffering from a cultural amnesia.
We've managed to create a strong sense of patriotism
around a country that was never ours in the first
place, whilst simultaneously excluding those who wish for
freedom in a new land:

"For those who've come across the seas
We've boundless plains to share
With courage let us all combine
To Advance Australia Fair."

We pay lip service to words of inclusion without
living their reality. We say that Australia has plenty to
offer those who wish to come here but in reality we lock
down our borders to exclude refugees.

We embrace the perception that we are warm and welcoming,
happy to give anyone a "fair go." Yet somewhere along the
way this narrative became justification for exclusion.
We have become so entrenched in the self serving
narrative that we believe there is no room for others.

Where pnce we celebrated inclusion and mateship we now have
collectively turned our backs on people seeking asylum by
boat.

Our thoughts are - white Australians are good-hearted.
Refugees are devious. We are hard-working, refugees have
come to steal our jobs. Where we are seeking the
betterment of the future for our children, refugees
have come to destroy it through acts of terror.

The caricatures of asylum seekers are shocking in their
cliches, yet they are deeply entrenched in our culture.

The political strategy of manipulating our cultural narrative
to distance asylum seekers has been employed to full
effect in recent years, allowing conservative parties
to work fear, terror, economic decline, and impinging
multiculturalism to their advantage.

The mistrust of refugees has been a key agenda for
conservative governments which has received
bi-partisan support of the mistreatment of refugees.

However public opinion appears to be slowly changing to
the positive. Peter Dutton in his interview on Sunday
morning in his interview on the "Insiders," said that
they were looking into the re-settlement of the
refugees in indefinite detention on Manus and Nauru.
Both in the US and New Zealand.

Hi HenryL,

I'll give you a case study, and you can tell me if these are the sorts of people who fit your mould. Morris and Teddy two Ugandan citizens, fled Uganda in 2017 under threat of assassination, leaving behind five children aged from 9 months to 10 years old, in the care of relatives. They left in the middle of the night and crossed over into Kenya by bribing boarder guards. A few days later they were on a plane bound for Sydney, when they landed, they booked into a hotel and immediately contacted immigration seeking asylum. They were put in contact with a Salvation Army representative, who agreed to assist with their case. The Salvos put them in contact with their legal firm which provides free legal assistance for both humanitarian cases and for other disadvantaged people. Morris and Teddy are provided with accommodation by the Salvos, and other assistance while their case is being delt with. The couple are hoping to get permanent residency in Australia, but at the moment they can only do practical voluntary work (which is permitted by their visa) everyday helping many others through the Salvation Army's care programs.

Teddy cries daily for her children back in Uganda, whom sadly they only have irregular contact with. The couples thoughts on Australia, Morris says Australia is "Heaven on Earth" and Teddy calls it "The promised land". Adrian Kistan, General Manager of Cultural Diversity for the Salvos said of Morris and Teddy; "Like thousands of others they have come to Australia seeking refuge, safety and opportunity, but in return they give of themselves wholeheartedly to make this nation a better place. They are not takers, they are contributors"

A few days later they were on a plane bound for Sydney, when they landed,
Paul1405,
When did they apply for the travel Visa to Australia ? That normally takes ages & proof of ability to finance the visit must also be up front. So, how do such people even get onto a plane to Australia ?

Let us think this out, show me how this country can stop refugees/migrants, then the implications of doing it
Think about 200 years in the future, will the world be one ? if so is that bad?
Ending, [because it would no longer work] racism
How can those of us who are from backgrounds other than here, strill call for and end to both types of new arrivals
When will we address overpopulation? it exists now

Indy,

I gave you the facts as presented to me. If you have questions/concerns then I suggest you contact edward.conteh@aue.salvationarmy.org and they could possibly give you the information you require. Can't be fairer than that.

Y,

Between traffic accidents and industrial accidents about 500 people die a year, which is a fraction of those that die in countries where the government doesn't spend the $bns that a responsible Aus government and industry does.

About 3-4% of illegal immigrants on boats will die in transit. This is predictable and inevitable. A government not taking action such as the turn arounds to stop deaths at sea is grossly negligent.

"A government not taking action such as the turn arounds to stop deaths at sea is grossly negligent."

It's not the responsibility of the Australian government to 'take action' to prevent the deaths at sea of people who were never invited to come here. The government's responsibility is to protect our borders from people trying to get here illegally. That's what we pay them for. If people drown trying to come here uninvited, that's stiff cheese, nothing to do with us - and it certainly works as a preventative.

Too many people who believe in the integrity of our borders pretend to be concerned about the welfare of illegals; that's a weakness that will earn them no respect from the open-borders mob. The only concern for Australians is that our borders must be protected, and we must insist that they are. The let-anyone-in fruitcakes just put the deaths at sea as 's..t happening', in their evil intention to promote their anti-Australian agenda. There is no point in trying to be 'nice' to appeal to them.

ttbn, as a humanitarian society we take it upon ourselves to assist other in need where we can. You take the Fortress Australia view, and simply say lucky me, and bugger the rest.

Australia is the only country in the world with a
policy of mandatory detention and offshore processing
of asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa.

There is a global refugee crisis. Over 1.19 million
women, men and children need to be re-settled in a
safe country. Yet only 30 countries offer just 100,000
annual resettlement places.

And Australia's border protection and mandatory detention is the envy of the rest of the world, which has been overrun by illegals, thanks to politicians even more gutless and unaware than our own. At least some of our politicians are aware of the fact that they have obligations to their own country and their own people, who vote for them and pay them to protect our country.

Paul,

At last! You've got the message. I do believe in a fortress Australia, and I do not equate 'humanitarianism' with your virtue-signalling self-hatred and contempt for your fellow Australians. With your family connections, you would have no trouble moving to New Zealand where you would be much happier with your extreme Left views.

68 million, Foxy, most of whom would be women and children - let's say 40 million women and children :)

Australia takes in 190,000 immigrants each year. We have an annual quota of 19,000 refugees, who have done all the right things, filled out all the right forms and waited, desperately hoping that one day they will have enough money to buy a pot to piss in, while others shell out ten thousand dollars of their and their families' money to get on a boat and get into Australia illegally, bugger the right forms.

I hope that our government is humanitarian enough to pay for those illegal immigrants to go back to their last safe port, still usually in Indonesia, and helps them to fill out the right forms, like all of those other poor bastards in ghastly desert camps have to do, which I don't hear you crying about. 'Line of sight' refugees - is that all there is ?

'Line of sight' progressives - I wonder how many the world needs .....

Our 19,000 annual refugee intake (plus the special intakes) is a good deal more generous than New Zealand's (600) for the size of our countries, and is more generous than the US intake. Of course, ALL countries should be taking more, if they can satisfactorily integrate them into their societies. Ideally, the countries that they come from might go democratic and peaceful at some time in the future and those 68 million won't have to flee and leave everything behind. Including that damned pot.

Joe

Paul,
Your story has holes in it. As Indy said they would not get a ticket to fly to Aus without a visa and upon their arrival they would be held only until the next flight back to where they boarded, at the airline's expense.

Belly,
Yes the world is over populated but it is fixable. Two very different countries have shown that birthing by women can come down from 6 children per woman to just 2 with government sponsored family planning. These two countries are Iran and Thailand. Iran has since dropped its family planning as it now wants a higher population but, along with Thailand, it has shown that birth rates can be reduced.

This is what the UN should be concentrating on. It is obvious that Aus simply cannot take all the refugees in the world as we fail to keep up with the infastructure required for our immigration rate now.

Doubters should google family planning is each of the said countries.

Australia's refugee policy is out of step with
global standards and breaks international law.
The government needs to take several steps to bring
Australia's refugee policy in line with other
countries around the world and to comply with its
international obligations - a leading research
centre on international refugee law has found.

Director of the centre at the University of NSW
Professor Jane McAdam has stated that Australia was
currently breaking international law in its approach
to refugees.

A Report has been released, "a non-partisan,
fact-backed refugee policy agenda" which outlines
how Australia can develop a more sustainable and
humane approach to refugees going forward.

" Australia is violating many of our international
obligations and it is really out of step with what other
comparable countries are doing," she said.

The Report co-incides with Manus Governor Charlie
Benjamin calling on the Australia government to remove
the remaining asylum seekers from Manus Island, amid
unprecedented spike in suicide attempts and self-harm
following the federal election.

Peter Dutton appearing on Sunday's TV program -
"The Insiders," stated that he shall be looking at
removing everyone off Manus and Nauru - in the
hope of resettlement in the US, and New Zealand.

Dear Shadow Minister,

«Between traffic accidents and industrial accidents about 500 people die a year, which is a fraction of those that die in countries where the government doesn't spend the $bns that a responsible Aus government and industry does.»

100% of people die. Can you deny this?

So government is paying $bns to have us die in certain ways and not in others. Do we overall die in better ways? More comfortable ways? Nicer ways? Visit a nursing home, then tell me!

«About 3-4% of illegal immigrants on boats will die in transit. This is predictable and inevitable.»

That's all? I had the impression that it was even more!

So? These people decide to take a risk, but your kind of people wouldn't allow them - Are you their parent or whom do you think you are?

Some posters here at least admit it straight: they will do whatever it takes to not have these refugees here - they unashamedly want this whole continent for themselves: well at least they don't look for excuses and pretend to be "caring"!

«A government not taking action such as the turn arounds to stop deaths at sea is grossly negligent.»

What about a government that fails to take action and do whatever it takes to convert the infidels, even while believing that otherwise their fate in hell will be far worse than death at sea? There is no deeper pit for those who, believing they know better, invent and assign themselves "duties" as they please - how about a rapist claiming that God sent them to impregnate all women on earth?

Foxy,
What you and other refugee advocate seem to forget is that Australia is a sovereign country and can make laws to suit itself. It does not matter a fig what somebody in another country says or thinks, we firstly have to think of ourselves and so should our politicians.

We take 18500 legal refugees per year which is far too many anyway on a per capita basis and we have to insist on strong border protection to prevent the invaders.

Our founding fathers and colonials have worked too hard to make a tough enviroment into a reasonable place to live, for us to allow it to become another third world country by over population.

Every increase in population means a lowering of our living standards and we owe the world nothing. We do more than our share to help others less fortunate than ourselves.

You want to bring more people here to help them, well there are people here that need help and for my money they come first. After all they are our citizens.

According to Foxy we are all immigrants, so we should be celebrating Immigration week and those that have made Australia a great culture. There are man first nation citizens and percentage first nation citizens with immigrants. "Let us all rejoice." The problem is too many want to stop the rejoicing and want us sing to another culture tune.

According to Foxy?

Foxy is a qualified research librarian that
gathers her information from published records
be they right or wrong. Its up to the various
publishers to fact-check. If this does not
agree with your concepts then find your own sources
but don't blame Foxy.

Unfortunately we are not protecting the persecuted who cannot flee.

According to the 2019 World Watch List, 3,731 Christians in Nigeria were killed for their faith in one year. That’s almost twice the number from the previous year. Villages were completely abandoned as Christians were forced to flee the violence of Islamic extremist groups. Many lost their lives during the attacks. Others lost everything they had.

Though it is a Muslim-majority country, Burkina Faso had previously been known for its relatively peaceful coexistence between different religious and ethnic groups.
Now, increasing violence by Islamic extremists has left hundreds dead and displaced almost 100,000 since the beginning of 2019. Over 200 churches have been closed to avoid further attacks. Sunday worship services are discouraged in most rural areas.
Though persecution is common in neighbouring countries, such as Mali, no one was prepared for the scale and speed of the deterioration in security in Burkina Faso.

How can you celebrate when thousands are being murdered around the World. There are 47 countries currently murdering Christians. The report I posted is just one country

HenryL.,

Australia's signature on 22 June 1954 brought into
force the 1951 UN Refugee Convention relating to
the status of Refugees. It is now time for Australia
to take again the lead by pressing for a review of the
1951 Convention and the international protection system
of which it is a cornerstone.

While the Convention itself has, by and large, stood
the test of time, its implementation is failing.
Failing Australian national interests, the interests of
the wider community and the interests of refugees
themselves.

Australia has already demonstrated its impatience with
the status quo. Off shore processing as currently enacted by
the Australian government may have served its national
interests but is still in violation of the Convention to which
Australia is a signatory.

Australia's stance may be working short term, but it is
damaging Australia's international reputation.
The government needs to look beyond its current policies
and lead an international debate on reforming the
protection system.

We have to remember that the Refugee Convention is a
legal document and there are currently 144 State Parties
to the Convention, 145 to the Protocols, and 142 to both.

Trade, travel, telecommunications, have all made the
nations of the modern world more interdependent than ever
before.

I don't know where his stupid idea that we are all migrants comes from - out of depths of the murky Leftist vault, perhaps. The only immigrants in Australia are those people who were born overseas. If Ranjit Sing was born here, he is no more a migrant than Ernie Dingo or I are. If at least one of his parents is an Australian citizen or a permanent resident, Ranjit qualifies automatically as a citizen. If neither parent is a citizen or a permanent resident, he can not be a citizen; but neither is he a migrant. A little bit of reading and common sense would go a long way to cut out the crap that is espoused here by ideologically-driven posters.

"Australia's refugee policy is out of step with
global standards and breaks international law."

Which "law" would that be, I wonder? Can we see the exact wording of that law? Not just hear say from some obscure academic. If there is such a law, why hasn't Australia been taken to court by any number of countries and individuals who are constantly criticising Australia? Why hasn't the United Nations, always ready to bad-mouth our policies, done it?

Australia is certainly out of step with European countries who have violated the wishes of their citizens in a wholly tyrannical way. And a jolly good thing that is, most Australians would say - even those who support an orderly intake of processed refugees.

But, to claim that any globalist body can or would attempt to overrule any country's sovereign right to protect its borders and to decide who may live within those borders seems to be a bit of a stretch, even these times of Western cultural suicide

HenryL, immigration expert, I extend the same invitation to you as I did Indy, email the person I provided to fact check if you will. Until then you simply make assumptions and that's all you are doing. Are these people suitable to you or not as future Australians.

Josephus, //3,731 Christians in Nigeria were killed for their faith in one year.// No one should ever suffer because of their religion, political leaning or racial background. I understand you to be a practising Christian, although I challenge many of your views that you post, particularly towards Muslims. Having said that it would not surprise me if your particular church, like many others, is not involved with refugees in some way. I commend the churches for that.

ttbn, you are a intolerant 'B', telling me to po to New Zealand. I don't know where an old Nazi like you should be, but in Australia will do for the time being.

AN INVITATION TO ALL,

Particularly to the hard right nationalist among our little OLO community. Something that has always intrigued me, someone alluded to it earlier, I'll call it "AUSSISM". Exactly what is the criteria to be a true Australian. No one has ever been able to my satisfaction, defined what I call Aussism. The reason I ask is many want to exclude all those they see as not fitting the bill. If someone could define the meaning of being a true Australian then we could apply a "test" to find immigrants that at least have the potential to receive the grace of Aussism one day and become dinky-di in the future.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

"I think that the past decade has shown that an orderly refugee intake is far better than the shambles of boat ferrying (and drowning) queue jumpers and economic migrants."

What?

Are you serious?

Dutton has just overseen the highest number of protection visa applications ever. They are just not coming by boats anymore. The people smugglers are just as active and economic refugees make up a far higher percentage of applications than those desperate enough to get aboard a boat.
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/national/2018/12/09/record-number-asylum-seekers-peter-dutton/

Orderly refugee intake my arse.

Dear Paul,

You asked about "AUSSISM?"

We read the word a lot - " ëgalitarian"when you read about
Australians and Australian values. We would expect that
the values of our country would reflect the values of
influential people, after all they are people who would
have influenced those values. If we were doing
influential people in British history you would have kings
and queens, but you won't find them on our list.

You'd find people like Joan Sutherland, Peter Allen,
Kerry Packer, Gina Rinehart, Cathy Freeman, Don
Bradman, Ian Thorpe, Chopper Read, Julian Assange,
Weary Dunlop, Fred Hollows, and the list goes on.
You'd find a wide mix of people.

So how can we possibly describe from such a wide mix
as to what makes them Aussies?

Peter Costello writing in his Memoirs said -
"Öutside Australia's Indigenous people, we are all
immigrants or descendants of immigrants - some earlier
than others - but all with an experience of immigration
during the foundation of modern Australia."

He went on to point out that "Australia is part of the
New World, the world of immigrants, not part of the
Old World or the places they embark from.
This is why we are suspicious of inherited titles and
privileges. Nobody can afford to be too precious about
position and entitlements in this country because we all
know that position and entitlements are comparatively new."

Also our immigration experience is a broad one.
Originally it was Anglo-Celtic but after the war our
immigrants have grown considerably in numbers and type.
And all have made successful contributions to Australian
life.

"Aussism" therefore is hard to define. Easy-going would be
my description. Maybe I'm wrong.

Ben Pobjie has written a book, "Aussie, Aussie, Aussie,
Questionable Histories of Great Australians,"published in
2017. The book celebrates the Australians who made
Australia great as well as the ones who stopped Australia
from being great. It's a laugh out loud read and worth
getting hold of. We just may learn more about "Aussism"
from it.

Regarding the assertion on this thread that Australia "breaks international law", with its refugee policy, I note that this 'opinion' was ripped from an SBS report involving activist academics and busy bodies, and the first paragraphs were reproduced word for word.

What the poster overlooked is that the report itself was more opinion than fact.

What is not understood is that the treaties in the outdated Refugee Convention 1951 are not all incorporated into Australian domestic law; and calling it "legally binding" overlooks the fact that there is "no body that monitors compliance"; and the United Nations cannot enforce the convention. Neither is there any formal mechanism for the filing of complaints.

There is currently no standing body of international law enforcement officers, nor is there strong political support for creating such a body.

Further, what was missed in ripping the report was that claims that Australia was contravening international "law" were somewhat spoiled by an admission that for any assault on our sovereign rights to protect our borders would necessarily entail certain sections of the Migration Act, and human rights treaties would need to be incorporated into domestic law.

How dumb would that be, when we have a successful immigration and border protection policy that is the envy of ordinary Europeans at constant risk because of their politicians' lunacy! And no matter what the Fifth Column fruit cakes want, there is no body to enforce farcical 'international law'. How stupid to undo our success in maintaining the integrity of our sovereignty!

I have had a passing glance at this topic and I have not felt the need to comment as I have nothing to offer that has not already been said, and nothing of any real or serious controversy to analyse or criticise.
Then seeing the name and comments of a politician being mentioned, (Peter Costello) and knowing how they are ALL totally inept and lacking in anything worth hearing, I read the part referencing his memoirs that began with the words,'Outside Australia's indigenous people, we are all migrants or descendants of migrants'.
Now unless I have mis-read or mis-understood the message conveyed by those few words, he is wrong.
So unless these people he is referring to morphed from some form of early life on Australian soil or from a biblical reference point of view, direct descendants of Adam and Eve, (it's possible) then it is absolutely not true that they are not also immigrants.
At best they might be classified as the 'earliest known or recorded immigrants'.
But that is it, so I wish people would stop spreading mis-information and lies for the purpose of trying to make their point or try to speak in PC terms.
The true statement should read, 'anyone who came from another country irrespective of when, are immigrants.
Those pushing any other broom other than that are either knowingly arrogant or innocently stupid.
Don't believe me?
Look it up, and please for God's sake stop trying to push this 'their land' mantra, it's wearing thin and quite frankly not only is it a lie, people are well and truly fed up with the whole thing to the point where they are losing ground on the issue of 'our land'.
I can understand average Joe not knowing, or caring about this little fact, but a once high ranking politician?
It just confirms my opinion about these morons in govt, ALL of them.

(it's possible) then it is absolutely not true that they are not also immigrants.
ALTRAV,
It would be so in the gimme, gimme bandwagon mentality of the perpetual bleaters of victimhood & the self-loathers of Academia !

SR,

You are being disingenuous again. As per a previous thread, the difference between the boat and plane arrivals is that illegal boat arrivals generally destroy their documentation and rehearse their sob stories making it very difficult to verify their real status whereas plane arrivals need not only correct documentation, but legitimate visas before they can fly to Aus resulting in the vast majority of plane arrivals being deported. This is why many "refugees" were flying to Indonesia to get on a far more expensive boat.

As for the myth being propagated that Australia is breaking any laws, I would like anyone to point out exactly one law that Australia is breaking.

Hold up a bank and rob it of thousands, and you go to jail. Rob the workers of the non-unionised 7-Eleven chain of hundreds of thousands and no one goes to jail. Double standard, the millionaires walk free.

Paul,
I am not aware of any offer you made to Indy and that does not concern me. As far as your story about a couple of Ugandan attempted invaders are concerned, Their personal presence is not enough, they have no assets or skills to offer and we do not simply need more people.

So no I would deport them. As for the mother crying for her children, that is common for millions of mothers around the world.

Paul1405,
Bank robbers don't employ people & pay their Super, millionaire business people do !
You really should be made to have to actually work for a living, it'd change your mentality in no time !

Paul, what's your non-unionised rant have to do with this topic, Refugee Week Australia?
Is there a connection?
If so what is it?
It's amasing that in a free market economy we are forced, by law, on what to pay people, yet we have no 'law' that tells us how much profit we are allowed to make.
If you're going to regulate wages, then why stop there? why not regulate the selling prices as well, because I can't justify numbers like the banks profiting to the tune of $1 Billion a month, BILLION!
What makes it complete madness is, 'what do they produce or manufacture to justify all the profit'?
NOTHING!
And where does it all go?
Instead of whinging about what a small business owner is doing just trying to stay afloat, how about you change your focus on to the banks where you just might gather some followers that will then help bolster your cause?

Human Rights Watch tells us that Australia
is breaking international laws in its
treatment of asylum seekers:

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters.australia

In the Report produced by the Kaldor Centre at the University
of NSW -

We're told that "Australia should comply with
its international legal obligations because
it played a key role in drafting the
international treaties that now protect people
fleeing persecution and other forms of serious
harm."

It's pointed out that "These agreements reinforce,
rather then undermine Australia's sovereignty,
providing the framework within which governments can
manage their borders yet still co-operate on matters
of common concern."

It appears that - "Australia's obligations under
international law apply wherever it acts - including where
it intercepts boats carrying asylum seekers at sea or
exercises control over refugees held offshore in
Nauru, Manus, and PNG."

We're told that "Australia cannot "contract out"of its
obligations by sending people to other countries. To be
effective Australia's international legal obligations
should be incorporated into domestic law, and
accountability mechanisms should be put in place to ensure
compliance."

The report stresses that "revitalising our commitment in
practice will deliver Australia renewed authority as a
leader in human rights and provide a stronger foundation
for real and effective international co-operation on
refugee status, which can't be resolved unilaterally."

There's more in the Report at:

http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/kalder_A4_short_E_singles.pdf

cont'd ...

Sorry for the typos, here are the links again:

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2019/country-chapters/australia

And -

http://www.kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/kolder_A4_short_Esingles.pdf

More typos in the second link.

Sorry:

http://www.koldercentre.unsw.edu.au/sites/default/files/kolder_A4_long_E_singles.pdf

Just repeating stuff doesn't make it any more valid or useful; you just become more confused. Typos. That's not all. Here's more. Plus steak knives. We all know where you get your dicky info. We know what the loony left thinks.

Victor David Hanson, American commentator. He writes about America, but just look at what we, with our much-envied border protection policies, are missing out on. He is outlining why so many middle-class voters are angry, and why they won’t vote the way the Left wants them to.

“illegal immigration and open borders have led to chaos. Lax immigration policies have taxed social services and fueled multicultural identity politics, often to the benefit of boutique leftist political agendas.”

In the US, of course, but ain’t it grand that we Australians have avoided this with our border protection policies, even though we could have done without the unpleasantness we do have because of inappropriate immigration, legal and illegal. But, the Left still wants us to go down the same road as the US and Europe.

One that does apply to us though , is globalisation, which has: “enriched the cosmopolitan elites who found worldwide markets for their various services. New global markets and commerce meant Western nations outsourced, off-shored and ignored their own industries and manufacturing (or anything dependent on muscular labor that could be replaced by cheaper workers abroad)".

Australian politicians, like all globalists, have to have it driven home to them that their first priorities are domestic not global.

Can we leave our biases in the bucket at the door, briefly?
America is it not a nation of immigrants?
Its once proud send me your poor was so great
How many world countries are monocultures
How could any country become one culture
What is it we hate about other cultures
In the end a single world single people may be the best outcome

According to ABC News Radio today, the High Court has ruled that two doctors can OK a medivac move from Nauru or Manus for an illegal WITHOUT having to examine, see or speak to the illegal. Thanks Labor, thanks politician-for-10-minutes Phelps.

ttbn,

Your earlier comments about me?

How rude.

I do have eye problems. They can be fixed and
will be.

But your apparent problems are probably beyond help.

Now back to the topic of refugees.

Australia has to comply with its legal obligations.
It is a signatory of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
It also played a key role in drafting treaties
that protect
people fleeing persecution and other forms of serious
harm. And as stated in the Kolder Centre's Report,
these agreements reinforce rather than undermine
Australia's sovereignty, providing the framework
within which governments can manage their borders
yet still co-operate on matters of common concern.

Regarding the Medievac Bill. This became law in February.
More than 40 people have been transferred from
off-shore detention on Manus and Nauru to Australia for
urgent medical treatment.

After about 6 years the demand for assistance per day with
doctors completing an average 8.2 medical triages per day.
Dr Sara Townsend who's been co-ordinating the team of
doctors responding to the emergencies said -

"We've been working rapidly and around the clock to
ensure critically ill people are assessed by doctors
for transfer as quickly as possible. After almost 6
years the demand for assistance with applications has been
huge."

The Medievac bill gives doctors a lifeline to assess
sick refugees. As Dr Townsend tells us -
it does not
diminish the responsibility of the Australian government
to look after the people in its care.

The Australian government cannot "contract out"of its
obligations by sending people to other countries.

Foxy,

You are essentially quoting professional activists. If you dig down you will find that they are incapable of actually naming an international law we are breaking.

If you can find one then we can debate it, but so far you have provided nothing.

She can't help reminding us of her hypochondria, even as she keeps repeating the same old same old same old, and banging out other people's opinions for them. Now it's the eyes.

SM,

Perhaps the following link will clarify things for
you:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-refugees-policy-is-out-of-step-with-global-standards-and-breaks-international-law-report

SM,

Sorry, more typos.

Here's the link again:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-refugee-policy-is-out-of-step-with-global-standards-and-breaks-international-law-report

ttbn,

So you're playing a doctor on the internet now?

I guess that makes sense. After all being in the
jungle of the internet for as many hours as you
seem to be daily it's to be expected that you
would exhibit certain symptoms and illusions.

one wonders if Kevin Rudd had not acted so stupidly how much money could of be saved and given to genuine refugees? Why do Labour/Greens always want to reward bad and illegal behaviour and then ignore genuine refugees. And then you get the virtue signallers like Banks, Phelphs, Greens etc who live in leafy wealthy suburbs and would not dream of having illegals live next door to them. Many of them massive fences around their properties.

I would not been concerned about what the Muslim loaded Refugee Rights Council believes about Australia. They fail to speak out about the causes of persons displacement by Muslim terrorists. Solve the problems at the source, rather than criticize safe countries.

In a follow up to another of Foxy's inane and getting closer to insane comments.
If we are breaking international law, I was curious to know more and why, so I watched the link, and apart from it sounding very much like Foxy, ie; making a lot of statements plagiarizing comments, and giving no actual and viable info or solutions, I found only continuous mention of these so called laws, no actual references, of the law/s or it's/their wording.
I did find however the words international law mentioned so many times as to make me think of the saying, if you say something enough times it will be believed.
Then there is the bigger question, and the one which would tell people like Foxy 'to put or shut up', and that is; if we simple people break the law we are swiftly charged and dealt with.
Would someone like to show me where the Aussie govt has been charged with any wrong doing, let alone having broken some alleged 'International Law/s'?
Foxy, would you like to take on this challenge as you seem adept in quoting references and links and in so doing you will get the satisfaction of proving me wrong?

Dear Shadow minister,

You wrote;

"As per a previous thread, the difference between the boat and plane arrivals is that illegal boat arrivals generally destroy their documentation and rehearse their sob stories making it very difficult to verify their real status whereas plane arrivals need not only correct documentation, but legitimate visas before they can fly to Aus resulting in the vast majority of plane arrivals being deported."

There is not a single person in detention on Manus or Nauru which is without identification so stop with your rubbish.

You haven't denied the record numbers of fly in protection visa numbers under Dutton, but the claim the vast majority are returned is just bonkers. Certainly the not from the places we normally get asylum seekers by boat at least.

In 2017-18 80% of those from Iraq who flew in and then sought protection visas were granted them. From Syria the number was 100%, from Pakistan 80%, from Lybia 99%, and from Iran 85%.

You are probably correct in saying there are more economic refugees among those flying in under Dutton. This would mean very few of those coming by boat fit that description. By your own words mate.

ATRAV,

As I said, there is nobody and nothing to enforce this international law nonsense. It's all a farce. International law declared that China had no right do what it is doing in the South China Sea; but they are still doing it and will continue to do it. We have nothing ro fear by protecting our sovereign borders, and never did have.

Australia is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee
Convention. This is a legal document.
Australia needs to comply with its legal obligations.
Australia played a key role in drafting the
international agreements that protect people
fleeing persecution and other forms of serious harm.

Each person has a right to seek asylum as a matter
of this international law. People who come here in
search of protection have not broken the law.
Australia is breaking the law by not offering people
protection when they are in need of it.

Also indefinite mandatory off shore detention is
also contrary to this international law.
Australia's reputation is at stake.

There is further information given in the following
link:

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/australia-s-refugee-policy-is-out-of-step-with-global-standards-and-breaks-international-law-report

http

Foxy, bunkum and balderdash.
Your link is not relevant.
You speak of 'legal' documents and as though you are an authority on the topics you comment on.
Your link is moot, with statements like, 'A world-leading centre on refugee law said.......'.
Your doing it again, the question is so obvious it hurts, and that is, why are you getting your cue's and info from such spurious sources?
I don't care what SBS or the university of the plebs say, what I read and garner from this useless attempt at left whinge virtue shaming are words like policy and policy agenda.
No-where do I see any mention of a single reference to THE LAW/S you and the rest of the bleeding hearts go on about.
I actually would like to find that there is or are laws which will vindicate you, because then I too will be better informed.
Another thing which burns my bunions is, why should I or anyone else agree with something which we do not agree with?
It is a dangerous fool who freely allows more people into a country than it can sustain.
Treaties, agreements, policies, call them whatever you like, they are not law, as far as I am concerned I would not allow another person in unless or until we had a clear and definite need for them.
I'm sorry that people like yourself, who 'feel' for the underdog or the downtrodden, but like everything in life, it has to be managed.
The current slow rate of migrant intake, and the 'stalling' game of parking them off-shore is none of your or my business.
The govt, as lacking as it is, is doing the right thing, 'for the greater good', or is that not acceptable to you, and to hell with the well being and security of those of us already here, just let the poor beggars in you say.
Well sorry and for once I agree with the govt's stall tactics, for whatever their reason/s.

"The countries suffering most economically (based on GDP), because of refugees are to be found in Africa. On an economic bases Australia comes 94th in the World."

So what ideas do you have in mind to prevent this Australian suffering due to refugees that you've brought attention to?
What action or actions could we take to say get out of that top 100 group of countries?
With some changes we could maybe move to 120 or even 150, meaning we'd be much less economically impacted than we are now.

- Oh that's right, my mistake -
I forgot for a second we live in a bloody upside down world and what you're actually arguing for is to promote an INCREASE to the economic impact or burden right?

If you want to go shoot yourself in the foot fine, I implore you to go do it.
But I'd really appreciate it if you didn't shoot me in the foot as well.

How about this instead?
'If you believe in it, then you pay for it';
- Out of your own money, and not by helping yourself to other peoples wallets and purses.

AC, I don't see the logic;

//How about this instead?
'If you believe in it, then you pay for it';
- Out of your own money, and not by helping yourself to other peoples wallets and purses.//

I am a pacifist myself and a taxpayer, so should I be able to indicate to the government where my taxes are being spent. Possibly a check list to tick when doing our tax returns. I will not be ticking the war mongering box, laughingly called defence spending, I assume you are a believer in such, you will have no need to tick the refugee spending box. You seem to be happy to help yourself to my wallet when it suits you (through taxation) but deny me the same right, can I suggest the same goes for all.

I don't see the logic;
Paul1405,
Finally ! Will that realisation result in an improving of your mentality now ?
I'm thrilled you plagiarised my idea of stipulating where our Tax Dollars should be spent because when I first brought up the idea ages ago I got a cold shoulder from OLO'ers !
Unfortunately, Defence is not keeping our worst enemies out because they don't come with guns. They acquire them here during their silent, gradual build-up. Our leftists in authority are to insipid to realise that.

Great idea Indy, but I'm sorry about your massive pension cut!

For many years I have witnessed the foolish and self destructive, counter productive, attitudes and some cases, actions of the left, bleeding hearts brigade.
Now in the right places it's quite endearing and nice to see, but, looking at the bigger picture, I see a world of averace, greed, arrogance, and self preservation.
The latter is the only one which we must never take our eye off.
If we go down the path of being too charitable, we run the risk of being taken advantage of.
Some would scoff at such a suggestion.
Well it is happening right here, right now.
I have sponsored people in the past and based on my experience, of the two I helped, one went on to being productive and integrated very well.
The other went on to become a thief, con-man and worse.
The blame for this falls squarely on my shoulders.
In an attempt to pacify me friends have said that he would have found another way of getting in to Aus, if that was always his intention, but that's no consolation to me because someone else didn't help him, I did!
And my feeling is look what I have done, if I would have not helped him, there would be one less scumbag here to cause people problems, financially at least.
In looking at this simple example, I wonder how the odds have stacked up over the years of taking in foreigners?
How many undesirables have we let in?
The do-gooders will prefer to look at how many 'desirables' we let in instead.
What they so ignorantly fail to see is that even one undesirable is un-acceptable, so why would we go out of our way to make life harder for ourselves by inviting even one of them, because we don't know who they are or what they look like until it's too late?
Isn't life hard enough already?
This brings to mind the saying that 'the 'meek' shall inherit the earth', when we clearly can see and know that the opposite is the case, or the truth!
Objectivity not subjectivity!

ALTRAV,

Remember, in your previous post, you used the word 'insane'. You cannot reason with insane people. Particularly when they are in thrall to neo-Communist propaganda put out by SBS, ABC, the Red Press, and feral academics who get into universities with very low scores.

There are a couple of people on this site whose mental capacity might very well prove to be wanting if they were professionally examined. All we can do is adopt an attitude of, 'but for the grace of God, there go I'. (John Bradford, 1510-1555. He actually said 'There go John Bradford', but we can't all call ourselves John Bradford).

Of course, it's always amusing to experience these very few people prattling on with the same thing, totally oblivious of the fact that they are saying the same thing all the time. People actually used to go to Bedlam lunatic asylum in England to be entertained by the inmates; we can do it from the comfort of our armchairs.

Look at some of the garbage we get here as entertainment that we can enjoy occasionally or ignore as it suits us.

ttbn, I agree and not to be seen agreeing for the sake of it and adopting the 'look at moi' arrogance of some, the reason I don't just stop, and give one final burst of abuse and trying to get them to see the error of their ways or thinking, is because they are so full of themselves they will immediately run off shouting, 'we won, we won', and because such is not true, I must persist with calling them out at every ignorant or mis-leading comment or opinion.
It's because we allowed the mental deficients to go unchecked and unchallenged, that we ended up with crap like PC, SSM and a host of other wrongs.
I will eventually move on to greener pastures upon finding a better forum.
This was the best at that time, and I did not feel like looking further, also I had adopted the 'this'll do' attitude.
But for now I will remain, at least until I am forced out or I leave.
Anyway, I hope they realise, sooner than later that their views are not workable or practical in the 'real' world.
People are not going to suddenly become honest and angelical because a couple of do gooder dreamers, want it so.
I wish certain people would stop worshiping politicians, when WE all know they are self centred liars and thieves, how naive can one be?
Then there is this sickening praise of a nobody, simply because THEY are somehow impressed by them.
In fact I would not normally read such fiction but for the fact that knowing who wrote them I have to check for mis-leading comments and lie's, so they won't pass on their disease by infecting others.

finding a better forum.
ALTRAV,
This is a very good forum, you won't find anywhere with no Academia indoctrinated.

Indi, I agree that's why I 'settled in here, but I am finding it more and more frustrating because I can't wear fools, and I am disappointed at how many there are on OLO.
As I said I will stick it out till I get kicked off or whatever.
I find I can't leave because it will give the plebs the impression they have won, which is what they would like.
One less thorn in their side.
I would like to start up my own forum, one that encourages FREE SPEECH, and not this crap these morons are pushing.
One that encourages the writer to say exactly what they want to say or feel.
And I mean if you feel like abusing someone, go right ahead.
The terms of reference will be that anyone even thinks about using PC will automatically be expelled.
But as someone who knows nothing about programming or computers in general, will have to wait till I make the time to have it done.
Anyway, keep up the pressure or they will force their lies through.
Thanks.

The chooks are cackling among themselves, no bingo today at the retirement village?

Il Duce Jr, glad to welcome you back after your sojourn to the old country. Did you manage to visit any shrines to the Great Ones.

Indy, nothing to say about that brilliant idea of yours, when millions will opt out of paying wasteful Aged Pensions, saving billions. They are wasteful, you said yourself your last rise would be spent on more booze, a couple more schooners down at gods waiting room, I believe. What a waste of taxpayer money, bring in the voucher system for old folks. Agree?

Back to the topic.

Being Refugee Week it's appropriate to take another
look at the 1951 Refugee Convention.
We're told that -

It's been more than 50 years after its adoption
and the Refugee Convention remains the only
international instrument for the protection of
refugees and the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees ( UNHCR) is still strongly urging
Western governments to respect and uphold the
Refugee Convention as the "cornerstone"and
foundation of the international refugee system.

We can see from the fact-based Report given earlier,
suggestions for how Australia can make things
better for itself. The crux of criticism is that
the Refugee Convention today is obsolete and
inappropriate to deal with contemporary challenges.

We haven't as yet backed out of this legal document.
And we can do that - giving one year's notice.
But at present our governments have chosen to stay
with the Refugee Convention - obliging us to respect it -
because we're a signatory to it and a
Representative Democracy and not
a totalitarian state like China who does what it wants.
and is not a signatory.

The International asylum system has been under obvious
pressure for the last ten years. Neither governments,
nor refugee advocates, have been willing to call for
a review, (until now). NGOs have feared governments would
seize the opportunity to downsize their obligations
and governments have been reluctant to invite
censure and fearful of incurring even greater obligations.

Also most countries have invested heavily in their
refugee determination systems. Sizeable sections of
public service departments, entire organisations of careers
at the national and international level have been
devoted to implementing and promoting the Refugee
Convention.

BTW:

This information has been taken from government
sources - not some "Red" rags or " Communist"
propaganda, as inferred earlier by one of our resident
reprobates.

There's more at: -

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp0001/01RP05

We're told that - "with the collapse of offshore
processing and the likely increase in boat
arrivals into a politically-charged environment a
cross-road may have been reached regarding asylum
policy in Australia."

Experts are advising that "now would be a good time
for politicians to lift themselves above their
blame-game and unconvincing mouthing of adherence to
the 1951 Refugee Convention and open a debate with
the Australian people about the continuing relevance
of this United Nation's treaty" which we've signed
and which obligates us.

We should ask ourselves - "after 60 years ...
whether this Refugee Convention is still compatible
with morally sound refugee and migration policy,
or even with good governance?"

"Does it pose unacceptable risks in particular for
Australia which has a tradition of managed entry?"

The following link gives more, and is worth a read.
Especially as it discusses European modelling on
the subject:

http://theconversation.com/why-australia-should-abandon-the-refugee-convention-4003

Food for thought.

Some people don't know what bores they are, and when to shut up and realise that repeating second hand, fruitcake left wing propaganda and lies has never changed anyone's mind, and will never change anyone's mind.

ttbn,

If you can't understand what's being
said (from government sources by the way),
you're not paying attention, or it doesn't
agree with your viewpoint, or you're not
very intelligent. We can take our pick from
your posts.

Alternatively, you're under no obligation to read
any of it. Or you can start your own discussion.
But kindly lay off with your personal attacks
on me. They're wearing a bit thin. Are against
the forum rules, and are really not very flattering
to you.

Australia has an annual refugee intake quota of 19,000 (is that right ?), New Zealand a quota of 600. On the same population basis, New Zealand should be taking in around 3,000 each year - or, alternatively, Australia's quota could be 'adjusted' to about 4,000 a year.

Personally, I think it could be increased slightly, to 20,000, provided services were adequately available for language learning, housing, job training, etc. - and increased slightly as those services become more efficient. After all, there are close to seventy million refugees and displaced persons, displaced through no fault of their own, most of them in vast squalid, dangerous camps, often for decades.

But 19,000 compares favourably with most of countries. Oh, and all illegals - line-of-sight 'refugees' - should be repatriated free back to their last safe country and shown how to fill out the appropriate forms, like so many others, with no prejudice as to their previous attempts to enter Australia illegally. And join the queue.

Joe

ttbn no! look at your last post, think about it
Are you aware you come across a few shillings short of a quid?
What makes you bright enough to say that about any one
Insults are currency here so get ready to get some back
Every view has value every one a right to be seen
Even you rants

Dear Belly,

I remember my father telling me words to the effect -
Be grateful for what you have and stop complaining.
It bores everybody, does you no good, and does not
solve anything.

He also added that - everyone is a bore to someone.

I think I'll go with the leading bore's (Foxy) suggestion and stop reading the absolute tripe she keeps banging out. The woman is a crank.

The only posters on this topic who have made any sense are: me, of course, Yuyutsu, runner, Shadow Minister, HenryL, individual, and ALTRAV. Those posters, plus a few more who haven't contributed this time, but with whom I feel a certain affinity in most things, are enough to convince me that commonsense and intelligence outweighs ignorance and bigotry in our little community. I don't really need to bother with dills, and I will cease doing so forthwith

Peter Dutton says that women illegals on Nauru are claiming to have been raped as a way of getting to Australia, via the Phelps/Labor diaisgraceful Medevac legislation, for an abortion. These females have then changed their minds on arrival here, and have sort injunctions to stay in Australia

Dear Shadow Minister,

This country is facing a record numbers of protection visa applications under Dutton. The vast majority of those who are successful in having them granted are from middle eastern countries.

It would seem we are happier giving visas to those with the wherewithal to fly into the country rather than those forced the cheaper route via a boat. Given your rhetoric in the past why isn't this a concern for you? Why aren't you yelling from the rooftops? Is it just that the narrative doesn't permit attacking the opposition with fearmongering?

Hi Paul1405,
"I will not be ticking the war mongering box, laughingly called defense spending, I assume you are a believer in such..."

There's a difference between defense and offense.
I know that historically our soldiers had to leave our shores to fight in foreign wars previously; and not so much in the past (because they didn't know any better then) but more and more I consider 'soldiers' to be 'mercenaries for hire' the second they step off our shores.

I'd support defense spending, but only to ensure we have what we need to defend ourselves adequately if attacked.

To that end, a nuclear deterrent wouldn't hurt.

I don't support perpetual wars, wars for Israel, wars for neocons, wars for the petrodollar, none of those things are worth Aussies dying for.

ttbn,

Well now you must feel better about yourself.

During this discussion you've called me a
hypochondriac, questioned my mental capacity.
You've accused me of providing "dinky
info." You stated that I'm "ïn thrall"
to neo communist propaganda put out by SBS, ABC,
the Red Press, and "feral"
academics.

Then you call me a bore, and finally a
crank. And tell me that you'll have nothing to
do with me from now on.
Why didn't you stop reading my posts earlier?
People may ask. And -
I think some people might question your mental
capacity.

However, Thanks so much for sharing. And do keep up
the good work.
I feel positive now.

And, I shall hold you to your word,to leave
me alone, as you say - forthwith.

BTW:

Being of Lithuanian ancestry and having lost
family members in the most dreadful way I
am well aware of communist propaganda.
Your accusations of my being "in thrall,"
with it - is very low and upsetting to say
the least. You really are a toxic little man.

ttbn, don't let them get the better of you.
I stay, and read the comments so as to scrutinise them and attack, yes attack them, if the comments command it, depending on the level of lies or misinformation or the amount of self ingratiation is in the delivery.
I do not listen to criticisms from flawed people, as they cannot but make flawed arguments.
It is incumbent upon those of us with three dimensional thinking and open minds, to highlight deficiencies and errors wherever they occur.
The reason things 'have to get personal', is that those of us, who know better get fed up with those who don't, because of their arrogant mis-guided attitudes.
And so it is that when logic fails we have to go down to their level and communicate at a level they better understand, but still to no avail.
No matter how many corrections and examples we have to go through, it appears that ignorance and closed minds with old entrenched and secular beliefs go very deep and so it is they cannot be saved from themselves.
For example the author of this topic has been the main contributor which can be seen by the number of entries compared to the rest of us.
This is just one example of the 'look at moi' syndrome.
It is symptomatic of a narcissist.
This should give you an idea of what we are dealing with.

The author of this discussion is Paul.
A narcissist? Really?
This is a discussion forum not a battle-ground.
We're here to discuss, not attack.
Or call each other inane or insane.
Or look slander and slur people if their
views don't agree with ours.
We give links to information so people can
make up their own minds.

Nobody likes or supports illogical, abusive
posters. That's not being narcisstic - that's
being adult. And resenting that and behaving
abominably is simply ignorant, rude and unacceptable

The main reason I thought it was your topic, is clearly demonstrated by your last entry.
It's you again, no wonder I thought it was you, now I see that 'the song sucks- is yours and that must be what I was referring to.
Even so, I would have expected Paul to come out with guns blazing to correct me, and that would have been fine, but NO, who puts their hand up?
Your names not Paul, by any chance, is it?
What is at the core of my angst is that you are EVERYWHERE and dominant in the comment rate, so many times more than anyone else.
It is akin to ad nauseum and we, the open minded ones, are fed up, and this leads to you not being taken seriously, you need to know this.
Your attacks are moot when you use my own words in reply.
Can't you see it yourself?
You were either too lazy to conjure up your own words in response or you really do have trouble in communicating.
Either way, once more you FAIL!
Foxy, let me give you another bit of enlightenment.
These things you say in your last entry, that you accuse me and others of, again you offer no new and tangible or even credible comments to counter.
Tell you what, when you and your mates start making sense, not only will I and others stop criticising but we might just start commending.
Does that work for you?

Tell you what, when you and your mates start making sense, not only will I and others stop criticising but we might just start commending.
ALTRAV,
I have invited & offered that but Paul1405 et al steadfastly refuse !

ALTRAV,

They've become more unhinged since the election; it must really hurt them to realise that they were so wrong, that most Australian voters don't agree with them. It will only get worse. There is no cure for their problems. They will keep taking the poison, waiting in vain for us to die. A black man and leftist said that about their kind; a man they would admire - Nelson Mandela.

I hear you guys.
So sad really.
Oh well, onward and upward.
You know I have wondered, how is it that kind charitable people find it so hard to accept when talking about refugees and asylum seekers, people in the job of assessing all the criteria, implications and ramifications conclude that they cannot enter Australia for whatever reasons, they feel aggrieved and incensed that they have been rejected.
To me it's no different than applying for a job, going through the application process only to be told you didn't get the job.
So that means if it was one of these bleeding hearts, they would picket the company and crucify and malign them because they were supposed to give him a job just because they said so?
Surely even someone like the bleeding hearts can see the logic in that.
Personally I've never been happy with these people quoting hardship and asylum seekers, I feel that for every legitimate one twenty bad ones come with them, like social shields they can hide behind to give the impression, 'I'm with him'.
When in the country, we experience their true agenda.
No, I don't care who believes we signed some agreement, if the intake of people is going to affect the well being of the existing population, they must not be allowed to enter, hardship or not, agreements or not.
When we can facilitate them by having the jobs and infrastructure, jobs, water, shelter and so on, we will re-visit the intake, until then NO, it's called 'managing the situation.
Unlike the moronic left, who have no social, or economic cred what-so-ever, do not have a clue, would just let everyone in because they 'felt sorry for them'.
Well too bad, if we did not manage the situation, you idiots, we would be feeling sorry for us and our own.
Stop and think for Gods sake, no one can be so stupid to the point of putting the whole country and millions of people at risk, over the concerns of a very small number, or hand full of people.

Dear ALTRAV,

How is it going mate. You seem to want some attention so I have taken some time off and waded through your recent morass to see what pearls could be found. I really couldn't go past this;

“Indi, I agree that's why I 'settled in here, but I am finding it more and more frustrating because I can't wear fools, and I am disappointed at how many there are on OLO. As I said I will stick it out till I get kicked off or whatever. I find I can't leave because it will give the plebs the impression they have won, which is what they would like.”

So in three sentences you use the word 'I' 10 bloody times and then have the audacity to direct this at someone else;

“This is just one example of the 'look at moi' syndrome. It is symptomatic of a narcissist.”

Projection at that level is to be pitied I'm afraid. Get a grip and give us something of substance. Shadow Minister might be as slippery as heck but at least he can put together an argument which entices one to go and do some research and present countering facts if they are any. You give nothing.

You instead just splatter the pages here with insubstantial blather along with dollops of self pity. It is boring, trite, and a chore to read. Lift your game or don't bother.

SR, I yes 'I', must correct you in the interest of conveying a factually truthful agenda.
You criticise my writing by attempting to demonstrate your prowess in psychology.
Now 'I' don't know what got up your nose for 'you' to make this un-provoked and completely un-justified attack, but let me assure you, you are way off track.
Whether 'you' realise it or not, the use of 'I' is simply good grammar.
Because after all, it is 'I' who is making the statement, it is 'I' who is the one to direct any answers or conversations to.
'I' do not talk in third person.
It does not mean 'I' am 'up myself' if 'I' use the 'I', it's only either my writing style or simply a more efficient language to get my message across.
As for giving you something of substance, well now you really have gone too far.
If you did actually bother to read my comments, any of them, you will retract that misnomer forthwith.
'I' have been one of, if not the most critical of a certain band of fools who refuse to see logic, and yes 'I' have continually furnished them with plenty, yet they persist.
'I' have always given clear and logically structured arguments and comments, in the interest of the truth and the facts.
If at times this has not been so, I immediately thank the commentor for his correcting me and bringing it to my attention, because 'I' know 'I' can sometimes get it wrong, 'I' am human.
But when it comes to stubborn fools, they are the ones you should be maligning or attacking for negating the 'real' and inconvenient truth for a convenient one, where as it turns out is not the truth.
They are the ones who prattle on, not me, so please get it right, and next time please take a objective view of me and not a subjective one before you jump to the wrong conclusions.
There now, have 'I' made myself clear enough and avoided 'prattling' on.

because I can't wear fools,
SteeleRedux,
How on Earth do you juggle your dilemma there ? Are you self-loathing ?
The reason I'm asking is that you more often than not display yourself as a member of that category !

SR you have been told!
Intelligent thought will get you branded here
By some awaiting that experience for the first time

Belly, 'I' agree, and it's heartening to hear you suggest this about your mates.
It worries me that they can be so wrong about so many things.
Let's take immigration for instance.
Just because a very emotional member of your groups parents were immigrants, she is suggesting 'let them all in', when this is the wrong thing to do.
My parents were also immigrants.
Now so as to not seem unkind and cruel, or worse, as she portrays me, 'I' must remind her and her followers that 'our' parents migrated at a time when the country 'needed', more people, for the good of everyone and everything, or as the saying goes, 'for the greater good'.
The decision, at that time, was the right one.
To allow too many more people in at this time is the wrong one, cruel or not, irrelevant.
This is one instance where the words 'for the greater good' apply.
And in the context of this reasoning, it is 'for the greater good' that we 'not' allow people in at this time.
To do so without all the proper infrastructure and services, like jobs, water, and housing would be irresponsible and put an already struggling social structure further into more stress and pain.
Now surely you and your lot are not going to prioritise the well being of a handfull of non Australians, over that of millions of Australians.
And before anyone suggests that a handfull of people will have no effect on millions, stop and think, in a jobless market, 'every' job is a precious resource that must be protected at all cost, so that being the case, we cannot risk losing even one job.
Even worse, if we allow people in and they 'don't' get a job, they burden an already overburdened welfare system.
Belly, if 'I' am as stupid as you lot try to portray me, why is it 'I' can come up with these obvious facts on issues, and you and your lot can't?
So Belly, when's your lot going to 'experience' or demonstrate 'intelligent thought for the first time'?

Dear Belly,

Here we go again.

Goodness me. I never stated "let them all in."

Putting words into my mouth and making wrong
assumptions about me - is simply an attempt at provocation.
As are continuous personal insults and as Steel rightly
pointed out - a grab for attention and a response.

Psychologists tell us how to win
arguments. There's a whole list.

Knowing your facts are key, giving sources,
add to your credibility.

Of course some people are simply looking for a fight.
They can't help it. It's in their genes. Also they
get emotional if your views don't agree with theirs.
That pub mentality is very common among certain types.
It's a cultural thing, and clearly shows their
upbringing, and heredity.

We all grew up knowing such people. Luckily they did
not grace any of the social circles in which I moved.
Thankfully also, I managed to get away from them
until I came onto this forum. Luckily here, they are
in the minority and can be ignored.

"Intelligent thought will get you branded here".

If that is true, there's no hope of you ever being branded.

"Peter Dutton says that women illegals on Nauru are claiming to have been raped as a way of getting to Australia, via the Phelps/Labor diaisgraceful Medevac legislation, for an abortion. These females have then changed their minds on arrival here, and have sort injunctions to stay in Australia
Posted by ttbn, Friday, 21 June 2019 5:08:56 PM"

Further to the above, the failed politician responsible for the medevac legislation (Phelps) has declared Dutton's comments "unforgivable".

I suppose it's part of the mental derangement that all Leftists suffer from that deludes them into thinking that, having wrecked our border protection policy, the government minister responsible for our security has no right to demur to their treachery. How lucky we were to be rid of a lunatic like her. The chaos she could have caused if the voters of Wentworth hadn't regained their senses is too terrible to contemplate.

Intelligent people tend to have less friends
than the average person. The more intelligent
you are the more selective you become.

Back to topic.

The Medievac Bill gives doctors a lifeline to
assess sick refugees. It does not diminish the
responsibility of the Australian government to
look after people in its care and since the
Medievac Bill became law in February more than
40 people have been transferred from offshore
detention on Manus and Nauru to Australia for
urgent medical treatment. This includes people
who have successfully applied through the
Medievac process and other critically ill
people transferred by the Australian government
following advocacy by the Medical Evacuation
Response Group.

After about 6 years the demand for assistance per
day with doctors completing an average of 8.2
medical triages per day.

Talking about intelligence and branding?

Prof. Kerryn Phelps fought for this bill to be passed.
However, it should be noted that it was passed by
a majority vote. So blaming her is not very intelligent
and should be branded as such.

People on Nauru and Manus must be dreadfully, fearfully, sick, if Foxy's figure of 8.2 triages per day is accurate, which I'm sure it is. That cracks out at close to 3,200 triages per year - for 1,200 people - close to three triages per person per year ? Is that right ?

Clearly the hospitals on Nauru and Manus - and Christmas Island - desperately need Intensive Care Units immediately.

Joe

Oh dear individual,

You wrote;

“because I can't wear fools,
SteeleRedux,
How on Earth do you juggle your dilemma there ? Are you self-loathing ?
The reason I'm asking is that you more often than not display yourself as a member of that category !”

You are a mug mate. Have a look, I was clearly, well clearly to most people, quoting ALTRAV.

Dear ALRAV,

Individual asks a reasonable question of you; How on Earth do you juggle your dilemma there ? Are you self-loathing ?
The reason he asking is that it seems he is of the opinion you more often than not display yourself as a member of that category!

Dear Foxy,

Have just started reading No Friend but the Mountains by Behrouz Boochani. Daunting in many ways.

Dear Steele,

I'm also still struggling with reading it.
I find it quite heart-wrenching
and have to put it down and take a
break. It really gets to me.

I think I might go see a movie this week-end
to lighten things up a bit. Preferably
something light and entertaining.

Foxy, clarification: you DO mean 'all'.
All those that qualify!
You again mis-represent to make your point.
Any thinking intelligent person would know that you can't let them 'ALL' in, only 'all' the ones who qualify.
Do you seriously think, after all my explanations and 'rants' that I would suggest such an outrageous thing?
I can tell you how to win an argument, but when it's with a stubborn, self centred person growing up under a shroud of extreme social protection, to the detriment of their understanding and interactions with the 'real' world, it is very difficult, especially if they have undergone indoctrination from childhood.
Your attitudes and beliefs are way too 'soft', and do you or your family no good in this current social climate, like such things as having to be continually on guard, for fear of getting 'ripped off' at any time.
I can guarantee you have, more times than I would care to imagine, and the worst part is you still have no idea that you were taken advantage of.
I'm curious, when the TV has reports of people being 'ripped off', especially the elderly, I literally want to kill the scum responsible, or at least see that they got the death penalty.
They would not attempt that again and everyone will be better for it.
And please don't suggest jail, that's where they 'hone' their thieving, lying skills, and come out worse than they went in.
So when these stories and reports come on TV, what do you do? change channel, just ignore them, or do you scoff at the news readers as if to berate them for telling lies or reporting fake news, because according to you we should trust everyone and everyone is charitable and socially responsible.
I've got news for you, not that you will even acknowledge it, 'the real world is nothing like that'.
It might be in your world, but not this one we 'live' in.
I keep correcting you and presenting you with facts you still believe the world is flat and man did 'not' land on the moon.

It must be a horrible horrible place for the local Nauru people to live. I wonder why they don't all get refugee status?

SteeleRedux,
I was merely trying to tell you to look in the mirror !

Steely, Foxy, Jeeeez, what is wrong with you people?
Foxy, I got you pegged correctly, your last entry on page 21 dated 22 June 2019 1:49:09PM, says it all.
You are overly emotional, that's OK, I expect that is part of the female psyche'.
The overarching fact I am leading to is that your propensity to be affected emotionally simply by reading a book shows that you clearly are incapable of engaging in ANY and ALL forms of discussions, especially ones that generate emotions.
You are a blessing when it comes to the debate about women being equal to men and their (womens) capacity to communicate and function efficiently and effectively.
Your little confession is telling and a confirmation of why.
Thank you for finally exposing another flaw in the 'women are equal to men' fiction.
Steely, thankfully, being a pragmatist and a realist with an objective outlook on life, I can happily say that I have been reasonably satisfied with MY life and record.
The 'loathing' if there is any is aimed at the fools and idiots I've had to contend with on a daily basis.
If I say I am better than someone, it is because I am either familiar with his persona and life, and I know mine, so it is I am qualified to comment.
If someone has demonstrated a lacking or flaw of some kind, and does not correct it after being made aware of it, then they too are in that category, by their own doing or actions, not mine.
I simply broadcast the faults or flaws in people's arguments, I don't put them there, they do.
Steely, I don't know what the hell you are referring to, in your last condemnation of me.
I may take a little longer to make my points, because of details and accuracy, but my comments are not as you rant on about in your last paragraph.
Please read my comments, rather than try to put a subjective view of them before you read them, and making up a conclusion to suite your agenda, instead of the truth.

ALTRAV,

I'll try to be polite.

On page 20, you were the one who told
Belly, "she is suggesting - let them ALL
in." And, as I pointed out - I did no such thing.

You accused me of misrepresenting, when you
were the one doing the misrepresenting not me.

Then you went on your usual rants and -
I of course, stopped reading.

Now, you again continue with more of your rants.

So trying to be polite -

I want to make it quite clear to you that -

What you think or say is of no interest to me
whatsoever.
I don't want to elaborate as I don't like to
intentionally hurt people or offend.

Most of the time though, I scroll past your posts,
and don't bother
both with reading them or responding to them.

You've got friends on this forum, all I can
suggest is - direct your posts to them. At least that
way you won't just be talking to yourself.

I really don't want to continue having any more
conversations with you.

Loudmouth you make a valid point and highlight another set of lies or flaws in the do-gooders guide book entitled, 'how to screw a country and it's people, without really trying'.
Firstly, if I read correctly another maggot got the flick.
So glad another destructive force has been removed from her 'high horse' and with such force, it is heartening to see this unrealistic push by this unrealistic group has been dealt another big and painful blow.
When will these peons learn that being a do-gooder is not wanted if it means we are going to suffer because of their stupid narrow minded views and decisions.
As for the numbers and context of ALL these people seeking medical help in these boat people holding camps, another scam.
Anyone who actually takes these people and their numbers seriously, is a fool.
They have nothing to do all day but dream up schemes and scams as to anything that will get them onto our shores.
Like these maggots who cry rape then change their minds and seek injunctions to stay in Australia.
I can understand scheming, scamming people, who by the way, if they have to resort to lying and deceit to get their way, and to hell with what anyone says, they believe they are more important than us and therefore we must get out of their way and stop interfering, how dare we!
Bloody infidels!
More importantly, I would like to know who the Aussie bastards are who are advising them
They are not in a position to know our laws or read between the lines.
History and by their own admission it looks very much like it's the work of the greens, and not sure, but maybes with a touch of labour on the side.
This is an extremely irresponsible thing to do.
By aiding and abetting these people, and then they run the risk of rejection, those providing assistance and guidance are guilty of not only the applicants committing unspeakable acts, on themselves but others.
If they self harm, they are mentally ill and should be deported immediately.

Whew! Fruity loops here we come.

Whew! Fruity loops here we come.
SteeleRedux,
Yep, you're the first, many more to follow !

Individual,

Come on. You can do better than that.
At the moment, the only flair is
in your nostrils. ;-)

Foxy, just before you go, I have to clear up one of your last beefs.
The phrase I referred to, to make the comment of 'letting them all in' is on page 14.
Knowing your sentiment on the matter, I added your sentiment to it.
You referred to the govt's failure to abide by a convention that makes it illegal 'not' to allow refugees and asylum seekers in.
You stated that they were breaking the law.
So extrapolating on, logically, I reasoned that if you had a choice and forced the govt's hand, the govt would be complying with the convention and those people would now be on Australian soil.
Have I got the jist of it?
Anyway, I felt I should respond to your challenge, again in the interest of truth and clarity.
OK, now you can carry on and never darken my doorstep again, if that is your wish.
In fairness, I will still be scrutinising your comments, so even though I will not direct any response directly at you, I do intend to make it an open submission so as to not focus on anything you may construe as a personal attack.
I hope that is a reasonable compromise to allay any emotional concerns or fears you are (possibly) yet to incur.

As an ex-copper, I can tell you all authoritatively, those from the Middle East and other Islamic countries in the African Continent should be screened very very carefully before permitting entry.

The screening process must be done by experienced police, NOT those from Immigration. Any refugee claiming severe life-threatening illnesses should first be examined by a qualified Forensic Medical Officer to determine their bona fides. Many from this demographic do arrive with substantial (criminal or selfish) 'baggage' with no desire or intention to settle and assimilate in this Country.

These measures are, at the very least, for protection of all Australians and our enormous (permeable) Borders.

To assert many arrive to take advantage of our generous Social Welfare Benefits, is the least of our worries!

The arrival of their S.S. fortnightly benefits is small change to most of these people. Some of you might ask, how in hell would you know? I was D/Sgt. I/C of one of the task force groups looking into the supply of Lebanese orchestrated, illicit weapons; illicit drugs; forged documents; including Passports, Birth Certificates and in some cases, fraudulent academic documentation.

These raids were conducted in the environs of Lakemba, Punchbowl, and Bankstown, in the SW suburbs of Sydney.

In conclusion, many of my critics say, they have good friends among the Lebanese & Islamic Communities. It's not the community; it's some in it, that's the problem. That's why I believe careful screening is a must. To reduce, wherever possible, deceptive or illusive conduct., to gain entry to our shores, exploit our generous S.S. benefits, and re-commence their criminality.

critics say, they have good friends among the Lebanese & Islamic Communities
o sung wu,
I think the above line is actually summing up the situation in some way because of the term Community used.
Individual Lebanese Muslims are fine, it's when the they form a community that the contradictions surface. Were these people more interested in creating a better life for themselves here rather than establishing enclaves to harbour & foster their baggage, all would be good , alas !
Why can't so many Australians see what's going on ?

Why can't so many Australians see what's going on
is an excellent question - raised by Individual.

Lets take a look.

We're dealing with Refugee Week and we need only
take a look at the negative comments in this
discussion.

Some of the attitudes on display here are typical
unfortunately of those seen in our wider communities.

Imagine if you were a Muslim. How would you feel about
the increasing focus on Muslim Australians by
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party? Wouldn't
the negativity
produced only deepen the divisions between us?
Especially when
logically the Muslim community is so diverse and
in the public debate there's no recognition of that
diversity?

Isn't what we're doing alienating significant sections
of the Muslim community rather than actually
working with them?

Before blaming them for not integrating with us
we need to look at the reasons why this is so. Perhaps
we need to also take some of the blame?

Then we have African migrants who speak about being
subjected to verbal abuse and some also complain
about physical attacks. We can add South Koreans,
Chinese, Indians to the list - all experiencing the
same thing. And let us not forget the experiences of
European migrants after the WWII who also
experienced exactly the same kind of reactions.
All it took was a foreign name, an accent, a skni
colour, or religion to be discriminated against.
How can we then blame them for not
wanting to be part of our communities? Of course
they will form their own communities in order to
survive.

These deepening divisions are growing and threaten our
acceptance of new people. It produces "polarisation"
increases high levels of discrimination. If we don't
make changes - it will make it harder for any migrant
to settle and for us to accept them.

Changes need to be made on both sides. Just blaming one
side of the equation is not good enough and does not
help solve the problems we are facing.

'Imagine if you were a Muslim. How would you feel about
the increasing focus on Muslim Australians by
Pauline Hanson's One Nation Party?'

I would imagine every fair minded muslim would not want the **hole of a place reproduced here in Australia from where they have come from. If they do they are not welcome here so its a win win.

o sung wu, as no-one has seen the absolute high quality and value of your last comments, let me be the first to broadcast your ascension to one who we can turn to on matters such as this.
What these other narrow/closed minded, ill informed and petulant lot will never understand is that even when faced with actual proof or evidence of the error of their ways, thinking or beliefs, they will still insist they are right and mitigate with spurious examples of what WE should do and where WE are at fault.
You are a 'MAN among men'.
We should ALL take your words to heart, because you speak the truth having 'been there and done that'.
Yours may be the best entry so far, and I would urge any do-gooders to take heed and take a deep breath, and consider your words objectively and not subjectively and free of emotion.
You have taken the lead on this topic.
Well done.
Now let's see the do-gooders start their useless inane rants and moot reasoning in trying to de-bunk your comments.

Runner, hear, hear.
Why is it so hard for some people to see and think clearly, especially when they are presented with an uncomfortable truth?
I am not afraid to say that what happens in these countries is none of my business, and so it is none of anyone else's either, except those affected.
Now what the do-gooders are contending is that we allow the same tragic actions to be played out here in Australia by allowing them in.
Now here is my key point, and I'm sick of having to repeat it to try and convince these do-gooders; because we don't know who the miscreants are, (but they do), and because we only find out once they are here, the ONLY option is to stop migration altogether, irrespective of some stupid f*#&en treaty or agreement.
What absolute idiot would sign an open ended invitation to allow terrorists in to a country?
No one, with a full deck of cards or mind.
That's why we have these detention centres, even they are a hundred times better options than where they come from, if they are telling the truth, which it appears many are not by destroying any evidence of where they come from and possibly who they are, making it impossible to assess them.
So you jelly head do-gooders, you tell us which one of these people should be allowed entry into ANY country, let alone Australia?

The Ombudsman's report provides a detailed picture.
For those interested in seeing how many visas have
been cancelled over the years for criminal offences.
There's quite a few.
And as we know it's not all that easy to get into
Australia. Character and criminal checks are done.
People are thoroughly assessed prior to having
visas granted. Detention plays a part.

These people had committed a wide variety of offences.

These are not recent occurrences. Criminal elements have
been arriving into our country for decades. After all
we started as a penal colony.

We've had notorious criminals and families killing each
other on our streets and in our jails for years.
On the web there's a list of Australian people who've
been convicted of serious crimes.

We've had bank robbers, drug traffickers, notable
criminal families (the Morans, Pettingills, et cetera).
We've had gangsters, fraudsters, murderers, serial
killers, child sex offenders, rapists, and others.

Of course we need people to be thoroughly checked
and assessed prior to being allowed into the country.
That's a given. And it is being done.

what is
currently under discussion is an attempt to try to see
things from the point of view of how we can improve
things that deepen the divisions between us and how
we can change the attitudes that will make it harder for
migrants to settle and for us to accept them.I have stressed
that the changes need to be addressed by both our sides.

That's why -

We need to be able to debate these issues and try to
solve some of the problems we are all facing.

Of course, there are those who are more interested in
condemnation than in explanation. Or finding ways to
resolve these problems.

Explanations to some people unfortunately -
seem tantamount to sympathising and excusing.
This all too easily leads onto the
questionable practice of name calling and insults.
which results in people's reluctance to modify their
judgements with the result usually being a total
breakdown in communication.

Never mind.
One can only try.

cont'd ...

To help some who may not be familiar with all the facts
here they are from our government:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About-Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts

I'll try again:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/AsylumFacts

Refugee Weekend ended yesterday; enough already! Most of us wouldn't have heard about it if it hadn't been for one of the usual suspects who likes to start arguments and tell us what we should be thinking. These 'weeks' for this, that and the other go down like lead balloons in the wider community. I'm media savvy, but I haven't heard any mention of the pointless nonsense outside OLO. Perhaps the ABC was on to it, but I stopped taking lectures from them years ago.

Few people care, and so-called refugees continue to put it over gullible Western saps.

Hi there ALTRAV, RUNNER & INDIVIDUAL...

My comments herein have been expressed many times before, but alas to no avail. Many say I'm out of touch with reality, because in more recent times the previously overindulgent refugee checks & immigration screening, has improved exponentially since the days, where raids were necessarily undertaken on specific communities. Our politicians now claim many of the criminal class that attempt entry to Australia, are interdicted at our Borders.

To a certain extent, that may well be true I might be out of touch with the Lebanese Community since my retirement from the police, but I can still read, and I listen. And I've still got mates in the job, who tend to appraise me of what's going on. So I'm not exactly a friggin' mushroom?

I can say with absolute certainty, the new concern for the coppers is Africa Refugees & Immigration. Now we're confronted with groups of marauding African gangs, not only youths but adult participants, mostly from the Sudan & Somalia, countries where lawlessness has prevailed for so long, where corruption is endemic, not only of government but the police and military, such as they are? These people have no fear of the Police whatsoever. They contend our laws are so soft and pliable; they'll continue to be 'let-off' with S.556a of the NSW Crimes Act, 1900, over and over again? Why? Because we have a pathetically weak judiciary, that's why!

All African Refugee & Immigration from the Sudan & Somalia should cease immediately. Not even careful screening would assist in determining whether an individual from either Country could assimilate into the Australia culture.

If this Country wants to help either of these two Nations to improve their lot, best they send Aid & Technology to them. Rather than bringing those people and their problems here, to further 'infect' and 'inculcate' our people, with the same ideology of lawlessness, that currently exists over there.

Hi there TTBN...

As usual, you're so right! Fools like myself always seem to fall for the 'Social Bleatings' of the 'far left,' and yup I stepped right into it, didn't I? Sorry about that, but as you know I'm not that bright, so the inevitable happens, and whoops, I put my foot right in it again!

o sung wu, sorry I missed the meaning of that last comment with ttbn.
I don't understand sarcasm, and if it was not, I am surprised 'anyone' would challenge or question you.
As I said before, I find your stories and input invaluable, maybe because I relate to them so well, but mostly because YOU have lived it and you speak with authority.
Again you are right about, I was going to say shift from Muslims to Africans, but that would be wrong, because we have 'added' the African burden to an already overloaded security and legal system, with NO viable outcome in sight.
o sung wu, again you make sense, I have always preached your last suggestion.
In my version I quote the story of the man and the fish.
Instead of offering the man charity in the form of a fish, so he can feed his family for a day, why don't we teach him how to fish and he will never go hungry again.
I would like commentors to demonstrate just a little imagination or intellect and come up with ideas how these people can help themselves.
This way it's a win, win, win situation.
They don't have to be displaced or disenfranchised and all the social trauma attached to it.
And we also win because we will not have to worry about the criminal element that may slip past the scrutineers.
It's so easy, we were part of the original live sheep export trade and part of that scheme at the time was to teach them how to become vertically integrated or self reliant.
In other words, from paddock-to-plate.
This is very possible and can be achieved anywhere if there is the will to do so.

Refugee Week is Australia's peak activity to
inform the public about refugees and celebrate
the positive contributions of refugees.
Paul1405 started this discussion which appears to
still be ongoing.

Dear O Sung Wu,

Your opinion has always been as far as I remember
valued both by myself and so many others on this
forum in all the years that we've been here.
We've seen each other go through so many things
together - and shared so many experiences.
And not for one moment have I ever doubted your
expertise as a former police officer. Nor do I
in hearing your opinion now.

However, you I'm sure, will understand my occupational
habit of continuing to look for answers to solving
problematic and complex issues that arise from time to time.
I try to do research toward providing a more balanced
debate. And for that I often get attacked and accused of
all sorts of things. Never mind - it comes with the
territory especially here on OLO.

However, I want you to be quite clear I would hate any of
this to affect our relationship because as I said. I do
respect your opinion.

For anyone interested here is some research
from the Australian Institute of Criminology on
Sudanese Australians and crime - from police
and community perspectives:

http://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi477

ttbn, not quite sure what your beef is with o sung wu.
The ones I thought needed a 'touch up' are the likes of Paul and Foxy.
No real problem with Paul, he just created the post and that's fine.
Foxy, on the other hand seems like she has to be at the front of most posts, and her continual commenting comes across as someone trying to push their way through to get to the front of the line, for why?
I don't know.
Someone suggested ages ago, she suffers from the 'look at moi' syndrome which is symptomatic of someone who has to stick their nose in at every/any opportunity.
I wonder, have you ever noticed the amount of entries she has compared to others?
I have been forced to compete with her on that score as I have had to respond to her many pho-pars and bending of the facts so many times.
Ah well she's not going to be acknowledging me or my comments any more so it may get a little boring for me hence-forth, or is it here-after?

Hey ALTRAV,

"Unlike the moronic left, who have no social, or economic cred what-so-ever, do not have a clue, would just let everyone in because they 'felt sorry for them'.
Well too bad, if we did not manage the situation, you idiots, we would be feeling sorry for us and our own.
Stop and think for Gods sake, no one can be so stupid to the point of putting the whole country and millions of people at risk, over the concerns of a very small number, or hand full of people."

It may help to try not to think of the 'left' as a single unified ideological entity.
Try to split the left into 2 groups.
The 'useful idiots' who follow the movement and relate to and find a sense of identity within it out on the streets (the ones you referred to);
- and the others being those who direct the ideologies and agendas behind the movement.

I want to show you something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy

If you take a good look at what is described in the above link, you'll see that where you and I might think some policy or strategy is complete madness;
- Well somebody else would think that policy and strategy is EXACTLY the way to move forward to implement their own particular agendas and the point I want to make is that sometimes that which makes no sense whatsoever to one person, can make perfect sense to someone else.

The above strategy is an example of Hegelian dialectic, which is a framework to guide our thoughts and actions to a predetermined solution.

1. The government creates or exploits a problem blaming it on others
2. The people react by asking the government for help willing to give up their rights
3. The government offers the solution that was planned long before the crisis

Hegelian Dialectic is also often used is wars and foreign policy, with Step 1 incorporating the use of false flag attacks.

o sung wu,

Nothing I said referred to you mate. I'm very sorry if you think there was. You are one of the last people I would have a go at. ALTRAV seems to think I said something, too. I'll check my last post.

No. Just looked, and the only person I referred to was 'one of the usual suspects, i.e Paul, who started the thread. Feel free to point out what you weren't comfortable with, and what I might have missed.. You too, ALTRAV

Hi there FOXY, TTBN & ALTRAV...

All's well with my mate TTBN - Fact is, not so long ago I attacked TTBN quite unnecessarily as it turned out. I thought he took a particular position, to which I disagreed, and I went for the jugular as it were. The only problem was, I often misunderstood much of what he wrote, he's a very clever and intellectually sharp man, and consequently, I got my 'knickers in a knot' over it — a clear case of mea culpa.

Not only that - I see an obstacle, instead of finding a way around it with a degree of diplomacy, as many others do, I try to smash my way through it, and naturally, I come off worse for it?

Hi there FOXY...Indeed we've been colleagues & Internet friends for years now, and even though we've been at odds in some issues, I believe you're one of the most intelligent & gifted writers on the Forum in toto.

It's no wonder really; as you've worked as a Librarian in the United States for ten years or so, plus performing the same exacting tasks upon your return to Oz. Librarians must be well-educated, otherwise, however, could they provide the right advice and research to others?

You've always steadfastly remained, a true lady, an undeniable fact, even though some others have been downright rude to you. That said, I've always maintained a high level of respect for you FOXY, even though we may be diametrically opposed on some matters?

G'day there ALTRAV...You're one very well versed individual; Again you are like a few others on this Forum, very erudite, and intellectually shrewd. One who's capable of disassembling many of the opposition's arguments without attacking their character, and belittling them, like I once did.

I had to change my ways. Otherwise, nobody would respond to anything I wrote, which would cause me to question my motives, for remaining on the Forum? You sound like a very decent man, ALTRAV.

o sung wu, thank you for your kind words, BUT, in truth I am awkward with praise and you will find it so in past comments.
Also I do not deserve any kindness as some on OLO, especially Foxy will attest.
I too am guilty of the same sins you yourself have mentioned, and I too have 'toned it down a notch'.
I must keep my level of scrutinee but it is difficult to remain objective when there is so much unwillingness to consider the truth and so many have long term beliefs and been indoctrinated so many years ago, they resist change and keep to their closed mind beliefs.
That is why when I read comments that I agree with, I am quick to praise because of the surprise at finding a like minded soul on OLO, amidst all these brick walls.
That's not to say that there are not others I see eye to eye with, and I appreciate them,
Mind you I still have differences with everyone.
It depends on the topic.
But by and large, their a good bunch, and as I said earlier on, when looking for a forum, I settled on this one because it was so easy to get around.
Anyway enough, thanks again.

Another successful Refugee Week, where thinking Australians have come a little bit closer to understand the positives some refugees make to our community. However, judging by some of the comments from the way out brigade on here, not representative of the community at large, there is still much to be done before the Usual Suspects (ttbn get your own description) can come out of their dark corners and see the light.

there is still much to be done before the Usual Suspects (ttbn get your own description) can come out of their dark corners and see the light.
Paul1405,
People here have tried to guide you out of your indoctrinated darkness but you seem to get blinded by the light at the end of the tunnel.

Hi Paul,

Like most of the community at large, I welcome legal immigrants and legal refugees, but not illegal 'immigrants' or illegal 'refugees'.

Focussing on refugees rather than immigrants, I would be happy to edge up the annual quotas. As long as some of the seventy million genuine refugees and displaced persons around the world have filled out the appropriate forms and waited like everyone else, I welcome those who make the annual quota, and wish the best of luck next time for the hundreds of thousands who have ticked all the right boxes.

I'm fairly sure that these views have support from the community at large, judging by the results of the last election.

Cheers,

Joe.

Paul,

One needs a balanced approach, while there are many refugees that add value to Aus society, there are also many that do a lot of damage, the African gangs in Melbourne come to mind where Somali immigrants are nearly 70 times more likely to be involved in violent crime.

Also with the illegal boats it is hard to forget the 1200 men woman and children that labor and the greens killed the last time they changed the policy.

I think that you will still find that roughly 80% of thinking people still believe that the illegal boats need to be stopped.

Looks like we've started Joke Week with the claim of "Another successful refugee week", when most of the population didn't know it was 'on'. To be successful, something has to be achieved, but this small, largely unheard of groupwank has made no difference to anything or anyone. People continue to think the same way as they have always done.

As with the often bleated 'successful multiculturalism', the sheep are unable to explain just hour such a divisive state of affairs is, or could ever be, 'successful'

SM,

According to the Victorian Research Crime Statistics
Agency (CSA) the vast majority of crimes in Victoria
are committed by Australian born people. Between
April 2017 and March 2018 they made up 73.5% of the
unique offender population in Victoria whereas those
born in Sudan made up 1.1%. Of course prior to the
Victorian election fear mongering was the tactic
used by the opposition. They lost.

Labor responsible for death at sea. Yes Labor admits
its mistakes. HOwever the numbers are questionable and the
data also shows that under the Coalition governments 400 and
700 people died en route to Australia.

As for stopping the boats?

Scott Morrison
admitted the "Stop The Boats" slogan will never actually
work as - "There will always be those who try to give it a go."
And as we know from news reports the boats have still
been coming.

Imprisoning people in offshore detention does not
count as stopping the boats. Neither does turning them
back.

The asylum seekers in offshore detention centres are still
Australia's responsibility so the Coalition has not solved
the problem so much as created a worse one.

The offshore detention policy has cost Australian taxpayers
over $12 billion since 2012 (including the cost of running
detention centres, transport of asylum seekers, and
compensation payouts).

An inquiry is desperately needed into the precise cost of the
program since its beginning.

Foxy the latest statistics are:

"Sudanese-born people are 67 times more likely to be charged with aggravated robbery and 55 times more likely to be charged with riot and affray in Victoria than those born elsewhere, ­according to analysis released yesterday by the state’s Crime Statistics Agency.

The annual crime statistics to the end of March showed a rise in gang crime including car-jackings, assaults, street robberies and drug offences, despite the state achieving its lowest criminal incident rate since March 2015 when population growth is taken into account.

Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Shane Patton revealed there had been an “escalation” in offences committed by people born in Sudan and South Sudan.

“And anecdotally, we do know African youth are still over-­represented in those high-­impact, high-end crimes,” he told Melbourne radio 3AW.

The Australian obtained data based on country of birth prepared for Victoria Police by the Crime Statistics Agency, which shows there were 941 Sudanese-born unique alleged offenders in the year to March, compared with 875 the previous year, and 818 in 2016-17.

Figures for the past five years show Sudan/South Sudan has consistently been among the top two or three places of birth for ­offenders charged with crimes ­including aggravated burglary, serious assault, motor vehicle theft, aggravated robbery, and riot and affray.

The Crime Statistics Agency figures, which detail principal ­offences where offenders may have committed multiple crimes, show Sudanese-born offenders come second to Australian-born offenders (who represent 64.9 per cent of the population) for aggravated robbery and riot and affray, and rank after Australians and New Zealanders (1.57 per cent of the population) for serious ­assault and aggravated burglary."

SM,

According to the Crime Statistics Agency (CSA)
Victorian police supplies the crime stats
agency with information on the number of
individuals alleged to have committed a crime, their
age and the country where they were born.

We're told that there were just over 80,000 unique
offenders in 2017-18 and not surprisingly the
majority around 59,000 were born in Australia.

That means three quarters were born in Australia
compared to 1% who were born in Sudan. Or put
another way of the 80,000 Victorian offenders -
879 were Sudanese.

Seeing as the Sudanese are a minority regarding
population size this makes sense. It of course
does not change the fact that the crime stats are
high.

cont'd ...

SM,

My older brother has reminded my that in the
1950s a Catholic prison chaplain while
visiting his Christian Brothers school
and giving a lecture on morality and behaviour,
expressed his concern that a disproportionate
number of residents in Australian jails like
Pentridge in Melbourne came from Christian
Brothers Schools.

Go figure.

Was it as a result of religion, education, their
Anglo-Celtic ancestry? Because at that time most of
the country was initially Anglo-Celtic.

SM I think it may be time to set the SS Foxy, adrift.
It appears that no end of discussion or comments are relevant, unless they are sponsored by her.
She quotes links and references which aid her agenda or views, and are to be taken as gospel.
You or anyone counters with opposing views or corrective ones, and your information is immediately dismissed, without reason or qualification.
It really is pointless, I realise she can't accept the real world and all it's faults, and that there are bad people out there, but it's not their fault, it's ours.
Unfortunately her mindset is not one of a socially well integrated person.
I believe she may have had a secular and reclusive up-bringing.
People think that being a librarian makes you worldly and helps open your mind and eyes, well apparently it doesn't.
Anyway, good luck with trying to convince the unconvinceable.

AVATAR,

Been trying to tell you, mate. Some people will go to their graves swearing that black is white.

ALTRAV,

Been trying to tell you mate. Some people will go to their graves swearing that black is white. You have reached the right conclusion on this person.

Some people will go to their graves swearing that black is white.
ALTRAV & ttbn,
The scary part is that almost half the population is like that !
They think common sense is to be opposed at all cost ! Why ? Not even they know !

ALTRAV,

For your information:

1) Data is provided as a result of research
and findings on any given subject.
And, one gives the references to show
these findings to others.
They can assess the data and make up their own
minds on the subject.

2) The Crime Statistics Agency (CSA) was the same
data base that Shadow Minister also used. My second post
added to the information he provided. It did not
contradict him. It clarified what he wrote.

3) Your rant about me was totally inappropriate, rude,
and unnecessary. I can provide the data, but I can't
understand it for you.

ttbn,

You just can't help yourself. You can't resist biting.
And you wonder why the word "toxic" is apt regarding
your behaviour?

Foxy, I get that you don't like bad things or have to think that there are bad people out there.
But why the heck do you turn a blind eye to what is proven and real as opposed to this continual quoting of other 'official' sources.
You must have realised, even a little, at some stage in your life that some people are just plain evil, and cannot be saved or turned.
I don't want to read any more links and bloody references, if anything listen to what real people are saying here, now, today, and absolutely stop 'cherry picking' articles and material that you feel will help bolster or even make your case for you.
Just accept that there is a problem with some immigrants and stop trying to defend them.
If you don't already know what pisses us off it's this very example, and you practice it at every opportunity.
I can tell you for a fact, as you and the rest of us have been told over and over again to point of madness that this latter bunch of interlopers that have been arriving over the last few years are just not compatible with our lifestyle and values.
They may conform one day, but it's not happening now.
And the fact that you attempt to disseminate the false information to try to make these people look less guilty of the crimes they are accused of, is shameful on your part.
You are prepared to put people, including your own family at risk, just to promote an ideal or not admit you are wrong.

Foxy,

We are all aware of the tactic of trying to bury the issue under a pile of irrelevant statistics.

That the Sudanese are responsible for only 1% of crime is cover for the fact that they are only 0.1% of the population, and the crimes that they commit are predominately of the high end violent category for which they make up nearly 10% of offenders.

What would Melbourne be like if they were 1% of the population?

ALTRAV & Shadow Minister,

How about this title for your favourite OLO sparring partner ?

Dr. Diafoirus

ALTRAV,

In any discussion a person needs to know their
facts and be able to back them up in order
to be taken seriously.

Shadow Minster,

Fact-Check provides -

The following link - where I got my information from.
It also explains the factors involved in the reasons
for the crimes, such as age.
There's some interesting data brought out. You possibly may
have already read it. Anyway, it's worth a read to maintain
a balance.

cont'd ...

Here's the link:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-05/fact-check-sudanese-gangs-victoria/10187550

Individual,

You are a surprise.

Quoting from Moliere no less.

And, I fully agree the discussions on this forum
can often become - "Commedia dell'arte" .

Foxy, you're doing it again.
People, don't pay any attention to the mis-information being pushed by 'we know who'.
Again you find something to try to make your case.
Now let's look at YOUR submission.
I won't waste time on it because you have wasted enough of my time on this 'angle' already, but if you look at the numbers, and the stats, in isolation, and not as a collective, you will find that the percentage of, say, South Sudanese, that are criminals compared to how many South Sudanese are here, you will begin to see a flaw in reports such as this.
I have always said, you can end up with the stats you want simply by asking the questions a certain way.
I am not good at numbers with too many variables, it's confusing, but what I am saying is that somewhere in the numbers and stats (the facts), is the TRUTH.
I would like to see the exact numbers of black offenders compared to the total number of blacks here.
Then look at the total number of whites and compare the percentage of that group.
The surveys are ALWAYS tilted towards the answer the surveyors are seeking when they write the questions up.
Even if the 'truth' exposed that the numbers have been overstated, I suggest that the seriousness and maliciousness of the attacks by these people is so extreme that they are described as an extreme danger or threat.
Whatever the case, if the number of offenders and the severity and cruelty of their offenses is anything like the reports state, we have a serious problem with the mental stability and attitude of these people.
Have we finally gone too far with our generosity that we have let our guard down and allowed MORE undesirables into the country.
I'm sure our police and judiciary are well and truly pissed off with these offenders and those who foolishly pushed to allow them entry, bloody do-gooders, as if the system doesn't have enough to contend with, with the 'home grown' criminals we already have.
Thanks Foxy and Co.!

ALTRAV,

What exactly are you objecting to about the
Fact-Check information. And what specifically
do you find incorrect?
Kindly ex-plain.

I thought I just did, but anyway, I propsed that others check (knowing my answer will be seen as bias) the percentage of blacks to black crimes, and whites to white crimes, I'm over simplifying.
The results might or might not show that, on percentages and comparing eggs with eggs and chickens with chickens, we 'might', find that the percentage of black offenders compared to the total black population in question might exceed the comparison between the total number of whites and the number of white offenders.
At a glance I noticed the differences and the grouping of cultures, which is typical of this new lying culture of PC, so as to not offend a particular race or religion.
I am suggesting to take away the PC veil and look at the numbers in isolation and ethnic types.
You never know I might be wrong.

Foxy,

After everything, I see that "Sudanese-born people are 67 times more likely to be charged with aggravated robbery and 55 times more likely to be charged with riot and affray in Victoria than those born elsewhere" still stands.

SM,

The quote you've given
unfortunately gives a false impression and
needs clarification. The following link may help:

http://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-representation-of-australian-new-zealand-and-sudan-born-people-in-victorian-crime-statistics-101308

I have no wish to argue with you.

SM, relax it's not you who needs to clarify anything.
Foxy has a habit of 'hit and run', as she has already warned you, she 'has no wish to argue with you'.
Boy talk about pre-emptive.
I must have missed the part where you said you were going to argue with her.
Don't worry, she has a habit of choosing 'convenient' stories and articles that just happen to suite her agenda.
Taking this last pearler of a link for example.
She would have us believe the message this judge is sending.
Firstly, a judge is not supposed to comment on the vagaries of the media.
Especially as general comment, thereby engaging in the very issue he is warning people off.
The media saying something is expected and it is taken one way or another.
A judge saying something, is percieved as gospel.
Because he was not presiding over a case involving these blacks at the time he made these statements, it was totally in-appropriate to make these comments, because they were a 'personal' opinion.
Need I remind some that judges are people and they suffer from 'bad hair days' like everyone else.
This is the reason why we have things like jurys.
The jury was one of the corner stones of the courts and still to this day.
So a judges personal opinion about a general topic in the public arena is, at the very least, irrelevant.
No one is obligated to listen to someone who happens to be a judge giving personal opinions.
SM, I'm not sure which part of what you said, gave a 'false impression', because that is Foxys domain.
She's at it again.
You gave numbers and explanations, which do not need clarification.
Unlike her link which does.
The link is ambiguous at best, as it does not highlight clearly and in more detail, the different groups being assessed

Foxy,

The quote was raw data. I don't need to massage it.

objecting to about the Fact-Check information.

Are these sources reliable ? After all, they're mostly just academic !

Foxy forgive me
Purely by accident I read line one of an ALTRAV post
Never Do that there days, but he was insulting you from within his glass house
In my defense it was that that kept me reading, for a microsecond

Dear Belly,

Thanks for that.

Some people just don't get the facts and explanations being
presented to them. Statistics do need clarification and
explanation. especially if they are raw data.

I would have thought that Shadow Minister would have
understood my point. I was not looking for an argument with him
and my only reason for not continuing further with the
discussion now - is when I see there's no further point to it
as nothing productive is going to be achieved.

As for ALTRAV? Well, best not to comment too much.
Suffice to say that -
The man is
compulsive and can't help himself. Like playing
chess with a pigeon. Craps all over the board, knocks
over the pieces, and flies
off to his flock claiming victory. (smile).

Again, Thanks.

Foxy, you just did it again, by claiming you know what your talking about and having assessed the situation, then proceeded to finish with a miss informed misleading conclusion.
You even fail at mocking me.
Oh you're too easy, or you've lost your touch, either way, there is no challenge in jousting with you, why are you making it so easy for me.
Pigeons, playing chess, crapping on boards.
Really, Foxy, come on you can do better than that.
If I am right and I'm making you uncomfortable, then just tell me to get stuffed, but you know I'm right, so I guess, as you say, we'll just leave it at that.

Foxy,

One of my degrees majors in Economics and quantitative analysis. In layman's terms it is the analysis of statistics to determine valid information and actions to take based on the information.

One of the biggest dangers with statistics is that people with preconceived ideas run the risk of presenting the data in such a way that supports their bias. The two most common methods of doing this is cherry picking data that supports their claims, or burying data that contradicts their claims in irrelevant "noise"

What you are trying to do is exactly the second method.

If you analyse the Melbourne population as a whole by origin, and compare the results, the Sudanese population is orders of magnitude more violent than anyone else.

While the obvious counter that the majority of Sudanese are not represented in these statistics, the reality is that some profiling based on race is more than justified.

Shadow Minister, thank you, thank you, thank you.
In one clear and concise entry you have not only, vindicated me, but now I have also finally found someone to confirm what I have been trying to say, and get through to, Foxy, about her bias and deflective reasoning.
Anyone who has been following the past interactions between myself and her will attest to this fact.
Another reason for my reaction is that I am not well versed at writing or communicating effectively, and so lack the ability to get a message across in the most effective/efficient manner, as you have done.
Now, maybe, just maybe, we might get a more realistic and pragmatic stance from Foxy, but I doubt it, old habits are hard to die.
Well at least now the commentors on OLO finally know the truth.
No longer can anyone say, 'it's just me and I've been picking on her'.
Hopefully your comments can go a fair way to explaining my attitude and frustration which leads to some of the more extreme rhetoric I have HAD to employ in a vain attempt at correcting their mis-guided stance and attitudes.
Again, thank you.

SM,

One of my undergraduate degrees also dealt with stats.
And as a professional researcher - analyses plays a
crucial part. You not only look at both sides of the
equation but around the edges as well.

Anyway, this is not some sort of competition of -
"Mine's bigger than yours," male/female thing. Your side
of politics prior to the Victorian election did its best
to spread the fear of"the "problem"of "Sudanese gangs"
in Melbourne. So I can understand your take on this
issue. Your side is "never wrong." And in all the times
that you've been posting here I have never known you to
argue against anything your side of politics ever said.
Or be critical of them for that matter so it's perfectly
understandable that you wouldn't do so in this instance

However, I am not disagreeing with you. That's what you don't
seem to understand. I am merely attempting to present a
bigger picture.

In the link I gave earlier - we're told that one of Victoria's
most senior judges has warned the current media reporting
and political rhetoric around crime committed by people from
South Sudanese background in Melbourne is "dangerous"and
"skewed."

Interviewed by ABC "Four Corners"as part of an investigation into
the issue, County Court Chief Judge Peter Kidd said there had
been an inaccurate portrayal of how much crime is committed by
people from the community.

Kidd told reporter Sophie McNeill:

"If you are an African offender, and certainly if you're an
African youth of South Sudanese background from the western
suburbs of Melbourne, rest assured your case will be reported
upon."

The media choose to report on those cases. That creates an
impression that we, that our work, a very significant proportion
of our work is taken up with African youths from the western
suburbs of Melbourne. That's a false impression. I can say that
in general terms, most of our work, the vast, vast majority of
our work does not involve Africans."

Earlier this year, then Racial Discrimination Commissioner,
Tim Soutphommasane - made the point that while Sudanese
Australians

cont'd...

cont'd ...

SM,

to continue with the sentence from my previous post -

"that while Sudanese Australians were over-represented in
criminal offending in Victoria, they were "not the only group."

"We have Australian born and New Zealand born offenders
over-represented in crime statistics in Victoria too."

The term "over-represented" is used when the level of offending
by a particular group is greater than the group's representation
in the general population.

The statistics provided were taken from the Australian Bureau of
Statistics and the Victorian Crime Statistics Agency (CSA).
Both reputable sources. And they tell us that:

1) People born in Australia accounted for 64.90 of the Vic.
population and 72.59% unique alleged offenders.

2) People born in New Zealand accounted for 1.57% of the Victorian
population and 2.23% of unique alleged offenders.

3) People born in Sudan or South Sudanese accounted for 0.14% of
the Victorian population and 1% of unique alleged offenders.

Therefore it can be seen that while people born in Australia
and New Zealand were over represented in the alleged offender
population of Victoria. People born in Sudan were over represented to higher levels.

The CSA notes that crime "seems to be committed at different rates
at different stages of life." "If a particular group of people are
much younger or older than the general population comparisons
may not be valid."

According to Dr Mark Wood of Melbourne University - the South
Sudanese population in Victoria is "very young"with 42% of the
community under the age of 25, compared to one-thirds of the
Australian general population. The Sudanese ten to be younger
than the New Zealanders and Australians.

Therefore as you can see clarification and explanations are
necessary.

Foxy, clarifications and explanations are NOT necessary, neither are they even wanted, at all.
It is clear, every which way you look at it, the 'new' blacks are a serious problem, much more serious than previous acts of violence and assault.
Who cares about the bloody stats when we are faced with ANOTHER breed of troublemakers and miscreants.
What? are you going to start categorizing the various groups of baddies now?
To what end?
I don't think people really care about the stats when you see an escalation of attacks.
Nor do I think anyone would care about stats when they ARE BEING ATTACKED.
What has changed with this new wave of 'black attacks' is not only the quantity but apparently the quality, if I may use that word.
So if you agree with SM, just say so and leave it at that, that's all the readers want to hear, the rest is folly and fantasy.

Shadow minister yes agree, your post about Sudanese is right
Screaming and shouting can begin now
It will not change my view, while still working [very very long hours] I on visiting the office went to the corner coffee shop
It was a friendly place
Always said g'day to every one, often shouted a sandwich and coffee to a homeless person
Sudanese , plenty around there, snarled at me, the women too
Truth is SOME OF THEM NEVER EVER SHOULD HAVE come here
Truth is that district had people from all over the world, they made it a happy place, but like me never got used to the problem few

ALTRAV,

I am just providing information.

Most thinking people want to have access to
information.

A democracy requires its citizens to make
informed choices. If citizens or their representatives
are denied access to the information they need to make
these choices, or if they are given false or misleading
information, the democratic process becomes a sham.

It's therefore important that the media not be censored
and public officials tell the truth.

When some politicians
(as happened in the last Victorian election)
use fear mongering tactics, or lie to us,
or exaggerate, their actions need to be corrected.
And, for me to do that is an occupational habit.

However if that upsets you in any way - don't read what
I post.

Here's another link to add to your collection:

http://www.theage.com.au/melbourne-news/are-sudanese-people-over-represented-in-victoria-s-crime-statistics-20180904-p501qx.html

Maybe it's just me but all I want to know is how many of these people are there in Victoria, and how many of the same people are the problem?
You would think that was a simple enough question.
Then do the same for the rest of the different races.
That's all I ask.
What I see in these articles and graphs and so on are attempts at muddying the water for fear the PC police will start ranting about bias and discrimination and the usual rubbish.
I want to know, because it will show the truth.
Not because I want to be right, but obviously with all this smoke there must be one hell of a fire, and the PC brigade are flat out trying to keep it under control.
I want to know one way or the other.
Stop mixing percentages and numbers, it is what you do if you want to hide the truth.

ALTRAV,

Read the link I gave you.

The information is given there.

The Mayors in the above link say racist fear mongering must stop !
How are the going to clamp down on the racists if they keep importing them ?

Foxy, why are you now using my words to preach to me as if I need to stop misleading people.
All that you said is exactly what I've been telling you.
Go back and look it up, it's all there.
As for your link, again you try to sell the idea that you give people information so 'they' can make informed decisions.
Rubbish, your links are ALL loaded towards the outcomes of your message.
Again you don't read my comments otherwise you would know I already read your links every bloody boring, biased one of them, so I'll ask again if, this time, ANYONE can tell me ,without mixing percentages and numbers, what the number of Sudanese in Victoria, South or otherwise, are, and what is the number of those that are the criminals or in the gangs?
Then do the same for other races in Vic as well.
That is the only true way to identify and differentiate who are the culprits and how many, exactly, are represented by each race or creed.
ie; I want numbers like; if there are 1000 of this race then there are 100 of them identified as criminals.
That's what I'm saying, instead of mixing numbers and percentages only makes it difficult and some cases impossible to get a clear picture.
It seems, that is the intention, as this comes under the purview of the PC police, to ensure that any information which may be seen as racism be avoided at all cost even to the point of lying.
By your not reading my posts anymore is not helping your campaign, you do realise that don't you?
It only makes you look childish, and of course, un-informed.
And the other question is if you don't read my comments, you do realise that everyone else does, even if only out of curiosity, which leaves you out of touch once more.
So I think I'll ignore your last comment, as it seems like a cry for help as it is almost a straight copy of my own entries of past.

ALTRAV,

Seriously, you would do much better to address your comments
to your kindred spirits on this forum.
They are really wasted on me.

Thank You.

Foxy, do you realise you are showing signs of mental instability.
Why? You continually say you will pay no attention to me, ignore me and my comments, yet even when I respect your wishes and accept your decision by responding to your comments via a 'general' broadcast, you then decide that you will ignore your own decision and decide to step back in the fray.
Now I don't mind, in fact I am quite pleased with your decision to return to the 'coal face', because it shows we have something in common at least; we are not afraid of a fight or confrontation, to drive home a point, or in my case, a truth.
I did address my comments to, not only kindred spirits but as general broadcasts.
Now here's a suggestion, as a friend, if you want to be taken seriously and regain some cred, next time you say you will ignore me and not read my comments, please do just that, It will be disappointing but deep down, I know you will be thinking of me and how I was always right.
One last tiny detail, you see part of says no, but the rest of you says yes, i know you can't keep away.
Want tp know how I know this?
Even though you TRY to distance yourself from me, you can't, because even though you don't want to acknowledge me, that pert of you that does, instructs you to put my name at the top of the respective comment intended for me.
It's OK, I won't tell anyone.
It'll be our little secret.
Till our next conversation.
Ciao.

ALTRAV,

You're absolutely right.

I'm the one with a mental disability.

I'm the one who has been chasing you
over all the discussions in this forum -
criticising you, preaching to you.
Telling you what and how you should post.

There - happy now?

Foxy, ahhhh, yes I am happy now, I can leave OLO knowing I was not alone in the crowd.
There was someone who cared.
I can't get too mushy, last time I had a moment of levity and wrote some 'caring' comments, they were construed as too personal and God knows what else their filthy mind thought, I was reported.
But it was worth it.
You do realise my banter is not personal, don't you.
I attack your opinions, beliefs and agenda.
So carry on, without you to correct, the others on your team are too sensitive and take everything personally, so, no fun.
Bye for now.

I just wanted to correct an earlier opinion I made, where I stated it would be better if they accidentally fell out at 35,000 feet or got bombed.

I wish to retract my statement on this basis:

1. Ends don't justify the means.
- This is a terrorist mentality.

2. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I oppose their return because I don't see why we should pay for their mistakes;
Furthermore our citizens should not be placed at risk for their choices.

AC, we were talking about children, not adults, rightly in Australia we do make children bear the responsibility of mistakes made by adults, in this case their parents. These children, whether you or I like it or not are Australian citizens.

Yes you comment was over the top and I said so at the time, your retraction is better late than never. Thumbs up if it wasn't forced on you.