One of the ideas that our friends from the left are so keen to propagate on the “asylum seeker” issue is that all claimants are cruelly persecuted and that they have no choice but to seek a better life in the west It is a convenient fiction that they love for several reasons. It allows them to paint anyone who offers criticism of the boats arriving as cruel and heartless because those people on the boat are so obviously “victims” of oppression.
Views on asylum seekers have tended to be polarised because it raises strong symbolic values issues, but there has not been very much practical discussion of the policy reality.
The asylum seeker challenge occurs against the backdrop of a huge increase in global migration since the end of the Cold War. It is often said that the Berlin Wall has been replaced by the “wall around the West” as countries try to balance their high legal migration with strong defensive measures to shut out illegal immigration.
The high demand for migration combined with the “walls around the West” has fostered a criminal trade as large as the global drug trade.
At the same time, there has been an explosion in the number of asylum seekers. During the Cold War asylum seekers were usually political dissidents escaping communist regimes to the West. In recent years, the developing world has increasingly suffered from failed states and civil wars that create huge numbers of highly traumatised people in crisis.
As the opinion piece I quote today suggests the reality of the situation is that many if not most of the people fronting up here in those boats are migrants, Oh they may come from shitty countries with lousy governments but it has ever been so that most of the world is badly governed and as a consequence offer a less attractive future than countries in the west.
It will be interesting to see just what the Anointed One will offer the Australian people by way of a solution to the problem because when it comes down to it they are just not going to accept the all touchy, all feely,” we must help these poor victims of oppression” crap any more. It is this fiction more than any other that undermines the left’s approach to the the “asylum seeker” issue in the eyes of so many voters. Further it makes those who are genuinely in need of asylum more at risk and less likely to be believed.
Perhaps we should be as scornful of those who claim persecution when they are really economic migrants as we are of those women who falsely claim that they have been raped.
Hmm, this is a tricky one and I can’t see an easy solution, but then nor can the government of the Anointed One.
Cheers Comrades
“As the opinion piece I quote today suggests the reality of the situation is that many if not most of the people fronting up here in those boats are (economic) migrants”
It doesn’t suggest that at all, Iain. Edwards conclusion is quite clear:
And we can only “intercept” the boats when they arrive in our waters. In other words, Edwards is saying that how the government is presently handling it is right, but what Gillard needs to do is explain it better than Rudd did.
Well Ray I saw the conclusion and I disagree with it but the thing that I wanted to draw on was the fact that Edwards refers to those on the boats as “Migrants” I feel that this is a significant point when most writers of the left are desperate to insist that the boat people are either “asylum seekers” or as “refugees” because this feeds into the narrative that they are worthy of our pity and our largess.
I know that you are gung-ho fro more people in this country Ray but the issue is not just a case of Gillard needing to sell the policy better Because it is not the numbers people that is the concern here it is the lies that are told on their behalf , spin if you like and I don’t think that even the anointed on can sell night on the basis that you can get a very good tan.
She doesn’t infer (in any way) that “most of the people fronting up here in those boats are (economic) migrants”. She merely concedes that some are not legitimate. And so do I. And so does the government.
And the issue of asylum seekers is not connected to the population debate. 6,000 arrivals (not all accepted) over 3 years has no major impact on our migrant intake, which is what is really driving the growth in population. But the fact that you (and others) see the refugee debate as being part of the wider population debate shows how much you want to muddy the waters on this.
I actually liked the comment last night on Q&A where it was suggested, (I think by Christine Wallace)that the whole subject be removed from the political landscape entirely.
The fact that it is such a political football means that the very worst lies of the left and the very worst xenophobia of the right are in play in almost all commentry on the issue.
In fact these are people who’s lives are at stake. Firstly because their homelands are in turmoil and secondly because, those with the money to do so, see a lenient border policy as a call to engage criminals to transport them from safe refuge to shangri la.
*picks himself up from the floor*
Is that really you, HJ?
Yes Jim That is a quality comment
Keep it up!!!
“Edwards refers to those on the boats as “Migrants” I feel that this is a significant point when most writers of the left are desperate to insist that the boat people are either “asylum seekers” or as “refugees” “
I thought the Government assessed the people arriving by boat and found them to be genuine asylum seekers as refugees. If they are not found to be genuine they are sent home, so your statement above seems confused at best Iain?
It may just be a semantic point Craigy But most lefties have steered clear of referring to those on the boats as migrants and I just though it is a significant change that Edwards is not so coy about doing so. But to you point about most being assessed as genuine I suspect that this has been the result of endless appeals wearing down those who have been accessing and a very generous definition to start with. There needs to be more debate about the criteria for acceptance in my opinion and perhaps also making arriving without valid identity papers (given the practice of disposing of documents is common) a good reason to treat claims of persecution with more scepticism.
The sooner that we (sorry, Abbott and his supporters) stop politicising the issue of boat people the sooner we can have a better debate about it.
Iain, you are certainly one of those who seek to politicise this by your constant referalls to the ‘open door policies of the left’. The truth is that the ALP has been just as concerned about border security and keeping non-genuine refugees out as the other side is.
John Howard turned this debate into a political football in 2001 with the arrival of the Tampa and his cynical use of the situation for political advantage. Isn’t it about time we not only moved on from Rudd’s spin, but also from Howard’s dirty politics?
Ray as much as you may not like it I am sure that this will be one of the big issues at the coming election.
As for “dirty Politics” I tend to think that the way that the left have been overly willing to call anyone who raised their voices about boat arrivals “racist” is about as dirty as it gets.
Iain, that’s like starting a fight and then complaining when your target defends himself. It will only be a “big issue” because the Liberals have made it one. And it’s the right who have raised the issue of race so don’t blame the left for calling them on it.
How on earth can you claim:
when the truth is that the left have characterized it as an issue of race when that has never been so at all. “race” is invoked but I have never seen anyone of substance on the right being clearly racist about boat arrivals.
Ray
If you have to be a DH then you deserve what you get.
“The sooner that we (sorry, Abbott and his supporters) stop politicising the issue of boat people the sooner we can have a better debate about it. ”
That comment is simply proof that it’s not the Abbott supporters acting alone that make this a politicised issue.
Iain, it certainly was the wingnuts on the right who were first to raise the issue of race re asylum seekers as a reason for keeping them out. And they still do it. Don’t you read the comments on blogs like Bolt’s and other places they hang out?
You’ve even alluded to it yourself several times, although I know you’ll deny that. But it’s true – many people (not all) on the right have come at the issue on the basis of the race/ethnicity of the boat people.
But to accuse me and others of making race an issue by merely pointing out that there has been a fair bit of xenophobia on the right is ridiculous and is just keeping the debate going in circles.
Even HJ in his first comment here agreed with that. Looks like the medication has worn off now though.
The reason most people don’t call them migrants is that in the first instance they are not migrants but refugees.
They are then assessed under international guidelines and found to be genuine asylum seekers or not, if not they are sent back.
If they don’t have documents they have to wait till some proof is found.
I think your argument is made of straw on this one Iain.
“the left have been overly willing to call anyone who raised their voices about boat arrivals “racist””
You must admit that in supporting the Pauline Hanson view in order to get elected, Howard was playing the race card. Ray has already pointed this out.
Here it is Iain. HJ’s one moment of clarity:
“The fact that it is such a political football means that the very worst lies of the left and the very worst xenophobia of the right are in play in almost all commentry on the issue.”
And I agree with every word. Both sides should drop the crap – and so should you, Iain. You ARE politicising this issue.
To put the comment in context, here is the exchange from Q&A.
I hope this is above board Iain.
CHRISTINE WALLACE: What would be great if the prime minister to look to the coalition and go, “This would be great to take out of the political realm. Let’s go back 20 years, de-politicise it. We’ll come up quietly between us with a sensible policy for the nation. We’ll stop it being the play thing of politics.” That would benefit everybody here and everybody in the outside rationally trying to get in. Bring it on. But, you know, I’m not seeing Tony Abbott as that guy.
VIRGINIA TRIOLI: Is that possible, Barnaby Joyce, do you think?
BARNABY JOYCE: Well, not only is it possible, it happens all the time. The vast majority of legislation is what they call non-controversial.
CHRISTINE WALLACE: On this issue. On this issue, Barnaby.
BARNABY JOYCE: It’s just that it – it’s just that it doesn’t…
CHRISTINE WALLACE: This issue, Barnaby. This one.
BARNABY JOYCE: Which one?
CHRISTINE WALLACE: Immigration.
BARNABY JOYCE: Well, the thing is when that talk – what we have is dog whistle politics. Let’s call it for what it is, right.
CHRISTINE WALLACE: You’re running away. Let’s go bipartisan.
BARNABY JOYCE: And stop beating around the bush. When I hear a statement about sustainable population growth, the first thing I say, “Well, what are you going to do?” Are you going to have a tax on people making love?” I mean, how are you actually going to do this? It’s just nothing more than a…
Ray.
If you must make comment, and you want the to then seek the sanctury of Iain’s protection then you need to stop with the crappy snides about medication and clarity.
You can’t go emailing the host demanding protection and then use insults as your staple point making tool. If you want the dogs of war let slip then I’ll accommodate, but if you’re going to sook to the boss about me doing it then you need to refrain yourself.
That said, why is it when Iain asked you to name a right wing person of substance that made race an issue in this debate, that the best example you have is comments at Bolt?
Seriously that’s your argument?
This is simply becoming too easy to thrash.
Ray
Personally I have never put any truck In the likes of Pauline Hansen and despite the accusations I don’t think John Howard did buy her ravings either. She and her views were often used to demonise those who are concerned about those boats and used as the universal “shut up” and a way to avoid really considering the issue. It has been a way that the left have been able to play the man rather than the ball
Just as the left has its nutters so too the conservative shave their extremists and I have no time for either and.
Craigy
I said that it is a semantic point Craigy thanks fro proving it
As Edwards’ piece suggests the UN guide lines were created under a different international environment , one where it was individuals and not large populations seeking asylum. Surely you are not going to deny that what we are seeing is a wave of emigrants?
Ray
I really don’t see how I am “politicising the issue” by writing about it. I allow and encourage all points of view on an issue that is already politically charged and will without doubt be one of the biggies at the next election.
As I see it the big questions that are so often avoided or not discussed are these:
What is a valid reason to “seek asylum” (citing the UN convention is not in itself enough here because I think that after 60 years it should be reviewed anyway) ?
Permanent residency or temporary protection for those found to be refugees which and why?
Family reunion eligibility for the families of asylum seekers allowed to stay , Yes or No?
How many goes at appealing a rejection should be allowed?
How long do we keep failed asylum seekers in detention before deporting them?
HJ, I did not seek Iain’s “sanctury” (sic) and I did not send him any emails “demanding protection”. I notice Iain asked you to look in your inbox so I guess he sent you one (not surprised) but it wasn’t at my request, so stop presuming please. And stop carrying on as though my “snide” remarks are of any consequence to you, an alias who hides behind anonymity & proxy servers. My so-called insults are merely backhanders to the on-field sniper. You’re sounding like a real sook who can dish it out but can’t take it. But yes, “accommodate” me by all means, but if you start up again ….
Ok Ray.
In the words of the Maddona of Lalor “Game on!!!!”
But remember that when I was making “backhanders” you took to bawling like a school girl.
I’m quite willing to debate you on the merits of your arguments (or lack of same), but if you wish to tackle the man as you seem so self justified in doing then you deserve everything you have coming.
Iain, I am not going to scroll through years & years of your posts on boat people but suffice to say you have politicised this issue over & over & over again. That is not just “writing about it”, it’s turning it into a political football. How can you deny that you have done that with all your references to the policies of “Brother number one” et al?
But you can have a clean slate as far as I’m concerned if you just agree that – going forward – we drop the bullshit.
As for your questions on eligibility, I have said before that I entrust our government (be it Gillard’s or Abbott’s) to make those administrative decisions. Note I said “administrative” not “political”. Those people determining eligibility are not politicians and have far more expertise than you or I.
Sorry Ray
) changed the rules was to refute the suggestion that Rudd’s changes would make no difference . I confess to taking a certain delight in being right in my earliest predictions.
But I think that you miss remember the bone of contention in so many of my posts about the boats, When Brother Number One (I do miss using that now that Rudd is history
I do appreciate that the eligibility of individuals are judged by public servants but they are not as distant from the influence of government as you seem to think as the stacking of the board by Rudd showed.
Finally we live in a democracy and as such all electors have a right to discuss and consider the issues like Asylum Seekers and how we should treat them and their claims of persecution in their homelands. I really don’t know what part of my argument is “bullshit” in your eyes and I would appreciate it if you could be more specific.
The stuff about those on the left advocating an ‘open door’ policy and instigating the racism debate is the “bullshit” in my opinion, Iain.
But okay, let’s both put that crap behind us. We are both influenced by our political beliefs and both at fault no doubt.
HJ, is it medication time again?
Ah! ‘Wing Nuts’ they really do make my day.Now that the reality has finally sunk in that Gillard is going carry on as P.M. after the next election, I know, lets have another debate about asylum seekers.Iain do you think the asylum seekers had anything to do with the pink bat fiasco?What about the price of Bananas?
Iain I like it better when you are telling us that the government is sooooooooo bad they are going to get the arse at the next election???.Abbott is going to part Lake Burley Griffin and lead them into the promised land he he.After watching Q&A last night and listening to the chump that can’t count for shit, waffle on about boat people,well I just know my little wager is safe tee heeee.
Let’s open up the borders and let everyone in, because who really owns this dusty old island anyway?
Speaking of islands, conservative politicians pander to the fears of ‘islanders’ about being invaded. That fear goes to the heart of what it means to be Australian. And weak politicians exploit that. Hanson did it. Howard did it. Abbott is doing it. I agree with Chris Wallace – remove the topic from the political playing field so we can all play with something else.
The fact is this island is a part of Asia not Europe, and most Asian countries are incredibly poor. And I mean INCREDIBLY poor.
It’s our duty as being rich to help those less fortunate.
I can understand refugees from Cuba showing up on the shores of the US, and refugees from Albania showing up on the shores of Italy. I can understand central european refugees (like my in-laws) showing up in Austria. I can understand Vietnamese refugees showing up in Malaysia and Burmese refugees showing up just over the border in Thailand.
If the poo hit the fan in Indonesia or New Zealand, I could understand lots of refugees from those countries using us as the first port of call. However, anyone who shows up here from Sri Lanka, Iran or Afghanistan had to go somewhere else first – like India or Pakistan. Indonesia presumably wouldn’t let them in unless they had money and a passport. I don’t get how people can front up from Indonesia and claim that they have no papers – that’s clearly a ploy to cover up where they really came from. They should be booted immediately. And are those that spent a few years in Indonesia before finding a boat really fleeing persecution and violence in Indonesia? We should be screening and selecting our humanitarian intake from the refugee camps in India, Pakistan, Sudan etc etc – and not allowing queue jumpers to barge in ahead of those that are prepared to put up with the screening and waiting.
“Let’s open up the borders and let everyone in, because who really owns this dusty old island anyway?”
The Australian Aboriginals that’s who.The time will come when they will have a lot more say in what happens here, ‘Sorry’ is just the start.
Asylum seekers is only an election issue because the wing nuts make it one.Most people could care less who comes to Australia, as long as they do the right thing and leave their religious and ethnic problems at the entrance, for mine they’re welcome.
Moreover the people that make this an issue are only doing it because they know it pushes, for some people, all the right buttons.They play on the base instincts and fears of people who are by nature ignorant racists.For the people that drive this agenda, it is about getting elected.The irony is, the people that would support the opposition on this issue are as dumb as dish water, and the opposition know it.They wouldn’t piss on the fuckers that would change their vote on this issue, if they were on fire.But they will tell you that wont they?Yea right!
So when are you applying for that job in foreign affairs boab? You’d make a wonderful diplomat for Australia with that attitude : “Oh, we are so isolated that we can only take Kiwis & Indonesians and anyone who trys to get here from further afield MUST be a dud and can piss off”. Right.
Yes Ray if you can’t behave it might be.
Ray
And yet here we have in the comment that follows yours, Nigel, a self confessed lefty, advocating an open door
. My mention of racism in this context is to criticize claims of it by those who want to shut down debate about the issue, I am in fact denouncing racism as I always do.
Lynot
The next election will be fought on several issues, government incompetence and wasteful spending (Pink Batts, BER, and stimulus spending) Climate Change Courage (or lack there off with the dumping of the CPRS) The attempt to impose an extra tax on the mining industry, and Labors utter failure on deterring the boats. Now I am looking at the last one in this post it is an entirely legitimate topic that I think I have addressed without unnecessary hyperbole. BTW what precisely did you bet that Grand on? Was it the return of Rudd in particular or the Labor Government in general
Nigel
It is entirely irrelevant that this country is wealthier than others in our region when it comes to the issue of those seeking a safe haven what is important is the ability of those claiming persecution to be “safe” The fact that these people can be safer than they claim to be in their home county means that those counties are just as capable as this one of providing asylum as we are if what those people are seeking is really safety as they claim rather than economic opportunity.
Our ability to help these claimants is not endless nor is our obligations under the (very flawed) UN convention its not fear that drives this debate, even among the great unwashed it is a deep belief that those in the boats are being unfair to the people who this country generously accepts in our refugee program that are being displaced by those who arrive in boats.
BOAB
I agree with your comment
Lynot
You are wrong,and your suggestion is racist to its core! Australia is “owned ” by is current citizens no matter where they or their ancestors came from.
That sounds a hell of a lot like you are saying that the doors should be flung open to all who wish to come here, although I do agree that leaving cultural baggage behind is something that newcomers should be encouraged to do. Your comment is the perfect example of what I have been saying about the use of claims of racism to shut down debate and demonise those who have reservations about the governments policy on this issue.
No Lynot people make this an issue because as a matter of principle we believe that every country, though its parliament has the right to decide just who it should allow to have the privilege of permanent residency or citizenship.
The next election will be fought on several issues, government incompetence and wasteful spending (Pink Batts, BER, and stimulus spending)
Just about every economist under the sun agrees that stimulus spending was necessary to keep the economy fuelled up. The problem with the two schemes was safety management (insulation) and rorting (BER), not spending.
Climate Change Courage (or lack there off with the dumping of the CPRS)
Your blog suggests you don’t believe in climate change. So why are you criticising them for dumping the ETS? Surely you’d be in favour of that. Or are you just point scoring?
The attempt to impose an extra tax on the mining industry
The attempt to impose a tax on *mining profits*.
And Labors utter failure on deterring the boats.
I’ve never been arrogant enough to think our domestic policies make one iota of difference to international migration.
Firstly Welcome to my blog Molly
I will however take your opinions rather less than seriously :
Really? I doubt that you are under the same sun as me because the efficacy of stimulus spending is something that may be questionable and only time will tell if it has the lasting effect that was claimed by its advocates. You split hairs about the nature of the problems with the government programs sadly for you it makes no difference to the public who know how toxic these programs have been.
You don’t have to be a sceptic to realise that Rudd showed an amazing lack of ticker when the going got tough on the CPRS which is my point.
You say tomato, I say Tomato lets call the whole thing off….
Well you would exhibiting a false modesty or arrant stupidity if you want to deny that our domestic policy is not a considered part of the decisions to take to the boats.
Anyway I look forward to you commenting further
I will however take your opinions rather less than seriously
Don’t worry, I took your post much the same way.
Really? I doubt that you are under the same sun as me because the efficacy of stimulus spending is something that may be questionable and only time will tell if it has the lasting effect that was claimed by its advocates.
It’s not meant to have a “lasting effect”, it’s meant to keep people spending and keep money circulating to stop the economy seizing up. Basic economics 101. Sorry if you don’t geddit.
You split hairs about the nature of the problems with the government programs sadly for you it makes no difference to the public who know how toxic these programs have been.
Yet the ALP still leads the polls. Go figure.
You don’t have to be a sceptic to realise that Rudd showed an amazing lack of ticker when the going got tough on the CPRS which is my point.
Rudd is yesterday’s news. Your next point?
You say tomato, I say Tomato lets call the whole thing off….
More like apples and oranges, but anyway….
Well you would exhibiting a false modesty or arrant stupidity if you want to deny that our domestic policy is not a considered part of the decisions to take to the boats.
Taking the boats and the numbers of boats in total are different issues.
Really???
So what would you know about the Australian economy?
They were not ahead enough for the factional bosses in the ALP as the blood on the floor of the party room proves.
You sound awfully familiar ….
You know my allusion is entirely apt despite your denials.
NO that is entirely THE issue here .
Iain, your assertion that we let in people who are not at risk in their home country is rubbish as far as I can see.
The process will only let them stay if they can prove that they would be in danger if returned and that that danger is ongoing. Like the many South Vietnamese soldiers who fled after the war was won by the North, and the Sri Lankan that may have helped the Tamil Tigers and so face persecution, they all have to prove they are in danger to be able stay here.
Your belief that any old economic refugee can just turn up and get citizenship is bunkum.
In other comments above some seem to think that refugees should stay in Indonesia. Why do the poor Indonesians need to settle all of them?
We do help them process those who apply in that country and if they are found to be genuine, they are resettled in a country that can afford to take them. I guess Indonesia takes some, but not all, and just like us, they can’t send back those who might be at risk.
So many misrepresentations of peoples plight can make some of us think there is a racist reason for the call to ‘stop the boats’. This feeling of racist undertones is reinforced by the behaviour of Howard over the Tampa and the dog whistling of people like Andrew Bolt in the MSM.
Craigy
I base that assertion on a belief that the UN criteria seems to me to be entirely subjective rather than being at all objective.
So what would you say about the fact that the latest boatload was in fact form Vietnam???
IT would seem that if they spin the right line, tell the right tale of woe and stay on message then they will.
I think that the point being made is that if the motivation for leaving their homeland is truly all about safety then they should eb content to stay in the first safe place that they come to. The fact that they then go on through several different countries and then lob in here suggests that it not a desire for safety that motivates them.
Surely repatriation depends not upon the “risk” but the reality (or otherwise ) or the magnitude of that risk
I don’t buy the “evil misinformation conspiracy of the right” claims at all on this issue Craigy but I will say that you are right that for the public the issue is all about veracity many doubt the claims of those in the boats an the left do themselves no favours by demonising anyone who is concerned by the unending armada of leaky boats.
Iain, re the Vietnamese boat people. From the article:
It seems to me you are setting yourself up as some kind of eligibility expert when – clearly – you are not.
ALSO, why do you go into the “motivation” of the asylum seekers? What business is that of yours? What the hell is wrong with asylum seekers being “motivated” to reach Australia, the best country in the world? You claim that the motivation comes from the poor protection policies we have but that’s just crap. Since when has anyone arrived undetected and since when were they not assessed for eligibility … by experts, not by you?
“Walk a mile in my shoes” comes to mind here, Iain. Imagine you are an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka and you lob in Indonesia. Would you want to stay there? There is nothing wrong with the asylum seekers trying to get here by whatever means it takes. It’s just human nature.
Of course I realise you’ll cite the criminal activities of the people smugglers they pay to get them here but that does not diminish their eligibility staus, if they’re genuine refugees. If you were to pay an unlicensed taxi driver to get you from A to B you would have committed no crime … and you would not be “sent home”.
The opposition’s attack on our “weak border security (which you are mirroring, Iain) is actually highly insulting to our very hard working and switched on Servicemen (and women) who are diligently and efficiently carrying out those duties at sea. Haven’t you watched any of the documentaries on that? Get Austar mate, it’ll open your eyes as to what a magnificent job these people do.
“Imagine you are an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka and you lob in Indonesia. Would you want to stay there? ”
I wouldn’t “WANT” to be there in the first place. I suspect that almost every person in Sri Lanka “WANTS” to remain in Sri Lanka and live a normal peaceful life, but because they can’t due to their persecution for their —whatever reason it is —- they “CAN’T” stay there. So, as I would, they (reluctantly) leave and head for Indonesia where persecution for their —whatever reason it is —-presumably stops.
I would imagine that, were I ever in this unfortunate position, I would be happy to be in Indonesia under the circumstances.
EVEN if I was wealthy enough to pay a scum bag people smuggler, I would not do that if it meant that others, who have waited longer than I, would not get assylum, and EVEN if I could afford to pay a scum bag people smuggler, i would not put my family’s lives at such peril when we were SAFE in Indonesia.
However I do see that some, independantly wealthy, white, middle (thinking themselves upper) class people don’t share those ethics nor do they wish to be in Indonesia with a lot of other – Asians – and would rather be in good old White Australia.
Ray
I agree that I am no expert but that does not mean that I am unable to discuss in principle what criteria should be valid and acceptable when considering claims for asylum.
Its my business and its your’s too because this is our country and that country is a democracy so we the people enjoy the right to say though our government, who may come here and who may stay. Surely you can’t be suggesting that the people should be silenced on this issue?
But that is not the issue Ray, the issue is that having got to a place of safety (like Indonesia) then any subsequent travel ceases to be a flight to sanctuary and becomes a process of migration clothed in the vestments of being a refugee.
I was not going to mention that actually because despite my belief that people smugglers are lower than something that you scrape off your sandals what I want to explore here is the very question that you think we should just leave to the experts.
I don’t think it is insulting at all Ray I think that the line run by the opposition actually recognizes just what a strain the navy faces as a result of Rudd stuffing up on this issue.
As for Doco’s on the Navy I don’t need to watch them because I already know that we have a damn fine navy that do a great job in difficult circumstances
You know, HJ, if you could just resist the urge to personalise your comments and not include the crap in your last paragraph, I’d bother to respond to you and we could (perhaps) have a reasonable debate about it.
But, as you’ve done that, it’s a clear indication that you don’t want a debate so much as you want to pick a fight.
This is simple Iain, name some people who have been let stay in Australia without any real threat or that have lied and got away with it….I’m sure it happens once in a while but your assertion that this is the norm is something you need to show some evidence of, or is this just a case of Andrew said…..
”the issue is that having got to a place of safety (like Indonesia) then any subsequent travel ceases to be a flight to sanctuary and becomes a process of migration clothed in the vestments of being a refugee.”
And Indonesia DOES take asylum seekers, as do most countries. The question of how many, is up to what they can afford. I suggest that one of the main reasons they take to the boats, is that processing in Indonesia takes many years in limbo. The Australian Government since Rudd has been trying to speed up the processing.
As for the UN process for determination, it was so bad that it was what the Howard Government used to determine if someone was genuine when it ran it’s off shore processing, during their time in Government.
If it was so soft why did Howard not say so??? What system would you use Iain??
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters03/theage_23-12.htm
should be its not it’s….doh
If things were as bad, as these supposed asylum seekers were portraying, you would be prepared to stay anywhere that accepted you, and was safe ?
Australia has always been seen to be the “holy grail” for these people. The Australian government over the years, under both Howard and Rudd, has been reticent to want to deal with the problem, hence the reason for the overseas processing centres. The problem is the source of these refugees. Stats show, that Sri Lankans still portray a large percentage of supposed refugees, wanting to enter Australia. Sri Lanka has been in a state of civil war for decades, and that looks unlikely to change any time soon. Their arrival on our shores has only been a recent historical occurrence. What’s changed ? Why are they now making their way here ?
When should we temper our compassion, with just an ounce of common sense ?
Our economy is not as healthy as the pollies would like us to believe, and that is only going to get worse. The stats show, that since our lenient policy on boat arrivals was tightened up, (i.e. the Pacific Solution etc), the boat arrivals have fallen quite substantially. That tells me, that people are willing to wait until the situation changes. Hardly a sign of desperation or fear is it ?
Iain, I really hate lengthy “quote & response” comments, so I’ll be brief and to the point:
You are doing far more than discussing eligibility “in principle”, you are delving into areas over which you have no real understanding of the key issues.
And then you have the temerity to suggest that people fleeing persecution in other lands must only flee to the nearest point of refuge. Why?
What gives you (or anyone else) the right to say what people living temporarily in other countries should aspire to? If they try to get here then so be it. It is not our place to govern in foreign lands, only to assist, which we ARE doing.
As for those who are still determined to take the risk and try to get here from Indonesia, well, we can only deal with them as they arrive. And we do.
Of course you should not be “silenced”, and of course you are entitled to your opinion. But when that opinion becomes a dogma it ceases to have any value.
Len the War in Sri Lanka ended last year with the defeat of the LTTE
“You are wrong,and your suggestion is racist to its core! Australia is “owned ” by is current citizens no matter where they or their ancestors came from.”
It is you that is wrong.This land we all call home is available to us only as guests, it was taken from the original owners by force of arms, with a sprinkling of lies and deception.This by the way happened in 1788 not circa 100 A.D.Accusing me of being a racist is risible.Because you wont or can’t share the guilt of Australia’s past, is why you try to maintain the myth we own it, we do not.
Next time I’m on holiday in some exotic destination I will drop the Australian flag on the beach and claim it for us.I mean if I stay there long enough according to you, we will then own it.
As for my bet!It was for the Labor Party to reelected, so please spare me any back tracking on your part, because Rudd is no longer the leader.Gillard will crush your man at an election, and I still maintain they would have won with Rudd.It is looking like all your predictions were for naught, you are looking for an escape clause already.
One other thing, I will bet (shortly) Gillard will not only win, she will increase the governments majority.
I am not saying the doors should be flung open, I am saying we should treat people who arrive here on boats as human beings, and they should be allowed to settle or not, on their merits.Yes, and we do agree, I don’t want anything to do with their kooky religions or their other ethnic squabbles, they can leave them from whence they came.OTH if they want to wear a sack over their heads with two holes cut out to see through I could give a f—.
This debate and I am obviously not including you,(I debate with you) is about conservatives pushing the buttons of ignorant people who in most cases, couldn’t find Afghanistan or Sri Lanka on a map.It is driven by the old boys clubs, the type of pricks that still sit around the Óld Melbourne Club’ discussing the price of labor in the rubber plantations of Asia. This is about getting your man elected end of story.
Um, Len, the “situation” in Sri Lanka changed dramatically after Rudd was elected. It’s still not entirely stable and the eligibility of former Tamils is under review. Or didn’t you hear that Rudd put them on hold? But if you want to play armchair expert on world events, go ahead. I’m realistic enough to know that our government agencies have a far better handle on the matter that what you, Iain or I do.
I see the determination to politicise the issue is still paramount here.
If some of the people at this blog believe themselves to be in a particular category of person then that’s entirely none of my business. Paranoia will do that to one. I was actually commenting on Wally’s attitudes, but if the shoe fits I can’t help it if others wish to wear it.
None the less, there is in some of the comments from elitist lefties an undercurrent of elite leftism.
In other words “Indonesia? Good grief! Yuck!”
That, at least to me, seems a rather shallow view of how people who are genuine refugees would think.
I can’t genuinely put myself in their boots, and neither I believe can anyone else who comments here, so I can only think about how I would feel if I was them. I have to tell you I would be glad simply to be out of that place and safe.
I suspect that others (here and elsewhere) are like me and view the situation through their own particular ethical paradigm. Ergo if they think “Indonesia? Good grief! Yuck!” then that feeds into their attitude to refuge there I suppose.
Ray
I have no problem at all with this country accepting displaced people for migration but I think that it should be on the basis of this country inviting those we think are the most needy or the most worthy. Its as simple as that.
I don’t think that anyone living temporarily in other countries are wrong to aspire to living on the moon if that is what they want but if they try to get there without invitation then they should not expect a universal welcome from the Lunar citizens. But if they can’t secure an invitation and they can make a safe life for themselves in those countries then they should do so in preference to them just coming here.
To beat Iain to the punch here Ray ?
As a resident of this country Ray, Iain (and everyone else that is a resident in Australia), has that right. We alone should dictate who comes to our country, and under what circumstances. FFS every other country on the planet has the same right, and are exercising that right ?
Again, if the situation was as bad as suggested, they would be willing to anywhere, that would satisfy that need for refuge or safety ? Things cannot be as bad as portrayed, if they are willing to wait, to travel three times plus further, just to come to Australia ? They attempt Indonesia, as they have been told, that they will do the customary few months there, before being forwarded/herded down here.
It becomes our right, the minute they decide to pack up their boats and head our way. That gives not only Iain, but everyone else in this country that right.
Your opinion ! Everyone is entitled to it, BUT, that doesn’t make you God, and infer that everyone elses opinion, is less valid, just because it doesn’t agree with yours.
Who the hell are you to say that anyone elses opinion is less valid ?
BTW, it IS a political issue !
Of course if we take the attitude that people who think “Indonesia? Good grief! Yuck!” should be rolled out a red carpet, then we should organise to take all the native Indonesians who don’t wish to remain there.
If we have no right to govern in other countries, then why not simply allow unoppressed cashed up Indonesians to jump on boats and head south?
I mean if Indonesia is such a shite hole, what right do we have to force Indonesians to stay there? Especially if Australia is better.
Len, I did not say that Iain cannot have his opinion. I described it as a “dogma”. And that is MY opinion. You are preaching a dogma too. The mere fact you would quote Howard’s “We alone should dictate who comes to our country, and under what circumstances” as a response to something I didn’t say clearly suggests that.
Lynot
I always find claims that any people have an inalienable claim to a piece of dirt risible:
A people can only “own” what they are capable of excluding other claimants from; the aborigines were unable to exclude the people who arrived in 1788 so the colonial claim is now validated by right of conquest that has been the way of the world since forever.
If there is one thing that I have learned about this issue is that most people that I have spoken to are not as ignorant as you want to suggest about the issues here at all.
Finally I refuse to feel guilt about anything, except things that I personally have done.
“This is simple Iain, name some people who have been let stay in Australia without any real threat or that have lied and got away with it.”
Care to have a go Iain?
Again to HJ and Iain, Indonesia DOES take Refugees, but a LIMITED NUMBER as they are a poor nation. This means these people are left in limbo for years, they are not allowed to work, and rely on NGO’s to look after them, often with Australian money. So the answer is to get on a boat and try your luck.
As Ray has said, tell me what you would do in their situation? I mean why are you calling for turning the boats around and sending them back to Indonesia? Why is it not okay for the Indonesians to not want them to stay?
I’m not trying to be political, just realistic. So unless you have some evidence of your assertions that;
1. Indonesia will except anyone who wants to stay there.
2. Asylum seekers can easily look after themselves while waiting (years) to be processed in Indonesia and life is good.
3. The UNHCR process of assessment (that Howard used happily) is corrupt or floored.
4. That Australia is under some cultural or economic threat from ‘Boat People’.
Then you are clearly just arguing for political reasons. As Ray said you are the ones making a political football of this.
“I have no problem at all with this country accepting displaced people for migration but I think that it should be on the basis of this country inviting those we think are the most needy or the most worthy. Its as simple as that.”
Iain, it’s not “as simple as that”. We don’t get to “invite” refugees as some kind of planned program. Your comment (in its entirety, not just the above quote) dismisses the notion that we have any obligation to take refugees, full stop. And that refugees have no right to seek asylum here, full stop. In short you are saying “no refs for Oz – stay out, we don’t want any of you”.
It’s a dogma. It’s as simple as that.
Again, under pressure, you are splitting hairs Ray, in an attempt to divert.
That is what you did say, as quoted.
It’s called the constitution. That gives me (as well as Iain, and anyone else, including you for that matter) that right. My opinion is nothing new, nor is it Howard’s either. It is not only my opinion either. It has been the voice of the electorate, ever since the Vietnamese arrived back in the seventies, hence the reason why Howard and his cronies have jumped on it, ever since. We all voted for the policy when Howard used the policy for votes, as well as his subsequent aspirants.
HJ, the fact no one wants to debate you says something, huh?
1. Indonesia will except anyone who wants to stay there.
No they should not and neither should we.
2. Asylum seekers can easily look after themselves while waiting (years) to be processed in Indonesia and life is good.
Where is that assertion made?
I agree that those (years) should be shortened and that the solution to boat people is entirely contingent on getting this process to be faster.
3. The UNHCR process of assessment (that Howard used happily) is corrupt or floored.
Floored more likely. We should fix that.
The biggest corruption of it is to allow people smugglers to triumph.
4. That Australia is under some cultural or economic threat from ‘Boat People’.
There has to be a limit to it Craig. Increase that limit and to remain a sustainable society we need to lower a limit some place else. i.e take more boat people jumping the queue and take fewer refugees out of the queue.
I have no problem with legit refugees as I have said many times here Ray. BUT the majority of these arrivals, especially from Sri Lanka, are not refugees per sae, rather, economic immigrants seeking a better life. Nothing wrong with that, but there are many others, on the waiting list they have attempted to “jump”, that we need more. What happens to them Ray ? Is your compassion there for them as well, as they are told, no sorry, we’re full ?
Our policies regarding the lower numbers of refugees attempting the trip, is showing that the tougher policy is working, be it slowly.
Hmmm
See Craig’s post.
The fact YOU won’t debate me says everything Ray eh?
Your half right HJ
Indonesia, sure, will allow anyone to stay, as long as someone else (for example, the Australian government), helps to foot the bill ?
Len,
I’m not “under pressure”, I’m not “splitting hairs” and I’m not trying to “divert”. You are either twisting the meaning of what I said or you don’t understand it. Here is my quote again:
What gives you (or anyone else) the right to say what people living temporarily in other countries should aspire to?
Len, our constitution does not give us any rights over the conscience, desire & ambitions of those living in other lands. Only over their actions once they arrive here. Your Howard dogma cannot be extended to say that we have sovereignity over people’s thoughts & desires, here or overseas. It governs our actions not our minds.
And FYI Len, my quote was in response to Iain’s weird attempt at professing to be an expert on what motivates asylum seekers. He was claiming he knew their thought processes.
But, we are governed by international convention and law Ray.
If they don’t arrive here, your argument is moot.
You still haven’t negated the argument regarding our right, as to who arrives on our shores, and who is allowed to stay. That you haven’t denied, merely as usual, dodged this important point.
Compassion under such circumstances is a wonderful aim, but typical human nature dictates, that advantage is always taken by those to fulfil their aims. Hence the expression, give an inch, and you’ll lose your arm.
Try harder, HJ.
Iain, as well as me, you, and anyone else has the right to their opinion.
That is what makes this such a great country to live in, and why ffs, so many are trying to jump the queue to get into it ?
Craigy
Off the top of my head I would suggest that Get Up’s poster boy Riz Wiki is at the very least gilding the lily, especially as its clear that his family is doing OK in Pakistan.
The wealth of places like Indonesia is not our problem nor is it a good reason for this country to be responsible reo the people who seek refuge there.
well I would try to pull any string or tell any story that I thought efficacious to my future but that does not mean that the stories that I might tell would be true as so many activists want to insist now does it?
The way that Indonesia treats claimants does not create an obligation for us to clean up the mess
As above
Well I agree with Edwards when she says that the UN convention was conceived in the immediate post war period and it was just never designed with the mass migration movements that we have seen in recent years it is a poor fin for the current situation
I have never made this claim and I think that it is actually beside the point.
This is a political issue and believe it or not I am trying to argue from first principles here.
“1. Indonesia will except anyone who wants to stay there.
No they should not and neither should we.”
Then that kind of defeats the argument that they should just stay in Indonesia then doesn’t it.
“2. Asylum seekers can easily look after themselves while waiting (years) to be processed in Indonesia and life is good.
Where is that assertion made?”
Iain Hall -
“But if they can’t secure an invitation and they can make a safe life for themselves in those countries then they should do so in preference to them just coming here.”
“3. The UNHCR process of assessment (that Howard used happily) is corrupt or floored.
Floored more likely. We should fix that.
The biggest corruption of it is to allow people smugglers to triumph.”
And the UNHCR is “allowing smugglers to triumph” how? I guess by being slow in processing them, which is a floor, but not one that matches the hyperbole against the UN and doesn’t invalidate the process. As I said Howard was happy with the assessment process.
“There has to be a limit to it Craig.”
Then why are we encouraging Aussies to breed when we have so many needy people around the world? It sounds HJ, like we would agree on a population policy. That said, boat arrivals are a VERY small fraction of our intake, would you not agree?
Len, you’re missing my point.
Anyway, I agree we have a right to say who is a refugee and who is not. And that’s exactly what we are doing. But Howard’s dogma (and Iain’s & yours and, er, someone else’s) takes it too far. We do NOT have a right to refuse entry to genuine refugees. Not yet at least. We’re not exactly being over run just yet.
The ump’s blown his wistle Ray. Game over. You want to forfeit, that’s your call.
I don’t need to TRY at all under those conditions.
Now if you want to debate then there’s a couple of posts above to have a crack at and a couple of questions posed within those for you to answer if you like.
Otherwise leave the field and carefull you don’t sit on your tail.
Sorry Iain, I didn’t see you response above.
I don’t know the story of ‘Riz Wiki’ Iain, but are you saying he has been let stay and isn’t a genuine refugee under the UN convention? Can you explain why? I will read up on him.
“The wealth of places like Indonesia is not our problem nor is it a good reason for this country to be responsible for the people who seek refuge there.”
It is our problem and we are giving them Australian tax payer funds to help them with this issue.
Do you know how many of the boat arrivals in Australia have already applied in other countries? Bet you don’t.
“4. That Australia is under some cultural or economic threat from ‘Boat People’.
I have never made this claim and I think that it is actually beside the point.”
Given the small numbers then, what’s the problem?
“I have no problem with legit refugees as I have said many times here Ray. BUT the majority of these arrivals, especially from Sri Lanka, are not refugees per sae,”
I missed this earlier comment of yours , Len.
It seems you certainly DO have a problem with “legit refugees”. Because it seems “the majority of these arrivals” are in fact “legit”.
Experts (Howard’s & Rudd’s independent experts) have said so.
Again, what makes you more knowledgable than those we employ to determine eligibility?
Sorry, Len, you are politicising this issue. And, quite frankly, you’re talking out of your arse.
As is Iain and, er, someone else here.
And I’ll leave you arseblowing try hards to circle jerk this out among yourselves. No disrepect meant but a spade’s a spade and I’m calling it one!
Craigy
I for one think that we will in the long term benefit from breeding the Aussies that we will need to replace those who will inevitably cark it. the benefit comes form the fact that we will educate them to meet our economic needs, they will have a primary loyalty to Australia, and finally its not our problem that so many people elsewhere have stuffed up their own countries.
Craigy, don’t you get it mate? Iain and the others are just so desperate for a real issue at the soon-to-be-held election that they’re cranking this one up. I’m not giving them any more oxygen. Neither is Julia, it seems. Funny how Iain has now adopted some of Gillard’s rhetoric & key words. That’s exactly what she wants them to do – she’s a shoe-in.
Sorry Craigy
but it does not follow that a problem becomes eternally ours just because we have helped Indonesia out with some cash, by that logic if you lend your neighbour your ride on mower you are from that moment on responsible for keeping his grass looking nice.
In one word “precedent”
Asked & answered, HJ. You seem to have a problem in recognising that. As for bailing out of the so-called “debate” here, well how many times do you want to me to give your side of things a shellacking?
“I for one think that we will in the long term benefit from breeding the Aussies that we will need to replace those who will inevitably cark it. The benefit comes from the fact that we will educate them to meet our economic needs, they will have a primary loyalty to Australia, and finally it’s not our problem that so many people elsewhere have stuffed up their own countries.”
Seeing as we are mostly migrants in this country, and we don’t have a problem with education (most of the students at my place of work are from overseas) and we are all mostly loyal to our country, what makes you think future migrants will be any different?
And it is our problem that so many countries are struggling, that’s why we are having this debate, people want to come here because it is safe. It is another argument as to if the people in Iraq and Afghanistan are responsible for the problems in their country. I wouldn’t be so quick to blame the man on the street.
Craigy
I think that you will find that despite the large migration programs that most people in this country now were actually born here.
Secondly I think that as you work at a place in the business of selling education to foreign nationals it is hardly a good barometer of loyalty to Australia first and foremost.
Why are the problems of the myriad of other countries in the world our problem? People wanting to come here because we have got the important things right does not create an obligation that we have to satify those desires.
Please point to any time in the history of those countries when they have had what you would call a good and stable government
I see again Ray, after losing a legitimate argument thread, you resort to name calling. Your right, but again you are losing touch with “your version” of reality. Your spray is touching, if not far from reality.
Your judgement call Ray. That doesn’t (as usual), doesn’t “make it so ?”
If your judgement was any less specific, you could park the Titanic in it.
Yeah, right, some experts. Their expert judgement ? Just let everyone in, to save from the political judgement of the electorate. Talking about sitting on the fence.
I guess the same source, that says you are the king of all knowledge and judgement Ray ?
My taxes pays for these “holidays” away from home, as do yours. As usual, you are looking through those rose coloured glasses, far from reality, and far from logic or even thought of the future economic repurcussions of such decisions.
Wow, there is the pot calling the kettle black ?
It is a political issue. As far back as the “White Australia Policy” in the sixties, turned immigration, in all its forms, turns it into a political issue.
That’s the point isn’t it ? The term refugee has been blurred so many times over the last years. Who makes the call of that legitimacy ? You ? Government ?
It is funny that your spray is not being aimed towards other countries in the region ? Where is your criticism of them ? Your impending line, of only interested in Australia, that will no doubt be forthcoming, will be out of touch. The situation in these countries, has been the same for decades. Again, as I have stated before, what has changed in these countries in recent history, that they now feel they have to hit the boats. Bloody nothing, thats what ! Might it have something to do with the fact, that they know that people like you, are in their corner, batting for them, to pass above those who have the skills and knowledge that we desperately need ?
Even though the numbers are falling, no doubt due to the tightening of the refugee policy in Oz, and no doubt, the thought of spending five years in an Indonesian camp, assists in the decision making process here. That is why the numbers have fallen. Word has gone back to the source, that we are not the “easy touch” we once were.
Neither we should be.
Why are the problems in other countries ours you ask? Then you answer it yourself.
“People wanting to come here because we have got the important things right”
People want to come here, why? Because they have economic and social problems. There problems become ours. Why do you think the Australian government gives so much aid? Have a guess.
“Please point to any time in the history of those countries when they have had what you would call a good and stable government”
Never said they did. What I said was you can’t always blame the man on the street.
The Governments in these countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) have mostly been supported by the US, even installed by them, good and bad. Even the current Governments in those countries are notoriously corrupt, and supported by the US. What say does the man on the street really have in these places? They do vote, but have little say in who they vote for.
It could be argued that the Government in Iran is okay. You and I wouldn’t think so, but they do enjoy popular support and the country isn’t starving or in civil war. We don’t get many arrivals from there, so we don’t have to send them our money.
They do make stupid threats and this may bring them down, but if it wasn’t for the US supporting Saddam, they might have won that war and history could be quite different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war
You can tell it’s a slow day at work…..Semester break and all…..
Len, I’m not “losing the argument”. Look at how you split my quote in two and then addressed the first part as being “my judgement” when the second part made it clear that I was referring to the judgement of the experts.
And then you claim to be more expert than the experts!
Honestly Len, how can anyone argue with someone who distorts everything as much as you do? There’s no need to because you defeat yourself.
But keeping blowing hard out your arse, Len. It’s hilarious.
And no Len, just because we had a “White Australia policy” back in the dark ages does not mean that the refugee issue of today has to be a political one.
Unless, of course, you think the issue of race is somehow relevant here.
And before you start jumping up and down saying, “don’t call me a racist”, I didn’t. You made the reference to it so explain.
(Len is now composing another long diatribe that repeats his anti-refugee dogma. I wonder how he will justify bringing the white Australia policy of the 50s in as being somehow relevant?)
Look out everyone. Ray is waving his “look at me, aren’t I wonderfully politically correct” card again. Put your skirt back on Ray, your slip is showing !
Again Ray, your grasping at straws, with those rose coloured glasses on again.
Call me anything you like, you still haven’t rebutted my argument (or anyone elses here here for that matter), with anything other than emotional rhetoric. You remind me of my first whinging wife ffs. Can’t win the argument, attack the arguer. That’s classic Ray Dixon.
If my “diatribe” is so irrelevent, why was it such a cat cry in Howard’s election ? Why was the “Tampa” issue such an emotional issue with ALL the electorate ? Why is immigration/refugee access such an issue with the voter now Ray ? Regardless of where they come from, Australia (like any other country on the planet), has the right to allow, or disallow whomever into that country.
Your leftist view of Australia being a Utopia for all, is touching but again, like the rest of your argument, not based in reality.
The “emotional rhetoric” is all yours, Len. Howard’s dogma (which you quote) is exactly that – emotional & rhetoric.
And, as usual, you are the one attacking your opponent and not the issue. Your diatribes certainly are irrelevant. I mean, anyone who says, as you do, that the majority of asylum seekers are not legitimate is presuming to be the biggest know all and blowhard imaginable.
“Why was the “Tampa” issue such an emotional issue with ALL the electorate ? Why is immigration/refugee access such an issue with the voter now” – because the Liberals have made it one.
And again, what is the relevance of the White Australia Policy of the 50s & 60s to the refugee issue of today, Len? Why did you even mention that.
Perhaps come back and just stick to the issues, huh?
(Take your time, Len. Try to stick to the issues. Try not ramble on. And please … tell me how the White Australia Policy is relevant)
Is that “shoe in” the same shoe that was on Krudd’s foot last Wednesday?
The truth is that none of those in favour of opening the northern beaches have any other solution to the issue. It’s all just too hard and they either decide not to debate it , use insults to deflect their lack of conected argument or simply say let em all in.
Some do all three.
The question still remains to be answered and any one of you might have a crack.
If Indonesia is such a bad place for a Sri Lankan, an Afghan or an Iraqi, then why is it good enough for an Indonesian, and why would Indonesians stay there when Australia’s lefties are standing on the beach with the welcome mat?
Hmm, lets see…
Simple really. It is the basis for, as you see it, all our discriminatory immigration premises of today. That is when segregation, as to who and who not, will be allowed into country really first began. All policies then, and since, have used that policy as a grounding. Due to changes in peoples opinions, lifestyles, and political leanings, racial discrimination is no longer politically correct, and neither it should be.
Because it was an election winner, that’s why. Howard tapped into one of our most basic of primal yearnings for this country. That we, and we alone, decide who comes to settle in this country, as is our right. Again, race has/had nothing to do with it, nor has colour.
Talk about one massive arse blow out ? Who are you to say otherwise Ray ? Where are your facts to back that up ? I have at least put forward past recent history to back an argument up, where are yours ? As usual, in your big toe !
Facts man, not emotional diatribe and dribble.
Check http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/face_facts_05/refugee.html#q3
That is a quick table, signifying refugee arrivals. Check the locations.
The reason why the refugee torrent has slowed to less than a trickle is simple. Word has got back, that no longer are they going to be allowed to land their leaky boats on our shores. Funny that huh ? Well ffs, things can’t be all that bad, if they are willing to wait, for perhaps a change of policy to come about, before donning the rags, and hitting boats, with perhaps more success ?
They are they issues Ray, but in your tunnel-visioned panorama, you can’t see it ?
Reality is a bitch ain’t it ?
Maybe someone here will explain why in a debate where race is an issue that they decided to use the term “call a spade a spade”????
As I said HJ, race is not an issue. Merely, rhetoric to battle or justify a losing argument.
Most countries on this planet, restrict who they allow or disallow into their country. To prove the point, try emmigrating to the US, and see how you go. We allow a certain percentage into the country, compassionately, as we should. Even the US does similar. But, why should we open the doors to all and sundry, especially with a rising unemployment rate, and a sickening economy. With all the “cry-hards” around, I find it interesting, as mentioned above, that the rate is falling quite substantially. That signifies to me, that things are perhaps not that bad, in the originating country, as we would be led to believe.
Craigy
But you still don’t get to the nub of the question:Why does the desire of people to come here oblige us to accept them?
My point is that having a shitty government in their own country is the norm and that in itself does not meet the requirements of the UN charter, You seem to be suggesting that it does.
I think that it is a false assumption to suggest that we give aid as a way of keeping would be asylum claimants in their home countries. My understanding is that most aid is not so cynically targeted.
Yeah another theocracy in the middle east would have been a real joy, especially one that would probably have killed more people
Len , the chart doesn’t tell us much at all. It hardly supports your argument – you’ve just linked to a chart, big deal.
And your answer as to why the White Australia Policy has any relevance to today’s refugee debate is as clear as mud. You’ve just waffled – again. How is it used as “a grounding”? The WAP is from the dark ages and was DISCARDED decades ago. Your response on this makes no sense at all.
As for Howard’s dogma being an election winner, well, you’re right. But that doesn’t make it right. What Howard really tapped into was something called FEAR & PREJUDICE. He demonised the boat people and made out we were under seige, being invaded and at risk. Remember, this was around the same time as September 11 and he even suggested there were terrorists among the Tampa refugees. Are you suggesting we return to the politics of fear? Sounds like you are scared yourself.
Your eligibility response is pure waffle and diversion too. I have simply said that YOU are not more expert (and know stuff all) compared to those charged with assessing the eligibility of asylum seekers. They’re trained & experienced in their field. They know what they’re doing as opposed to you, who picks figures and “facts” out of the air.
The air that blows out your arse, it seems.
I can’t really debate this with you because it’s like debating a mad person who has thrown his breakfast all over the room.
Oh, and HJ, a spade is a digging implement. It resembles a shovel.
Man, talking a walking talking example of extreme tunnel vision.
Maybe I should type slowly for you. You reckon I’m the one fear mongering ?
Where do you think todays policy (for anything, not just immigration), comes from ? The same as law, all precedent. History. What is expected by the community, with compassion, but without perhaps making the same mistakes, in times previous. Variations of a theme. What has worked, and sadly, what hasn’t. Our immigration policy is not too much different to that of forty years ago. We still concentrate on immigrant skill sets, but now we have to allow for unskilled, unwanted immigration, under the guise of refugees. The number is slowing, but allowances have to be made for these arrivals, as it should.
How has the WAP been discarded ? Still seems like our immigration is still aimed at white anglo/eu families. Perhaps these days, a little more from Asia, but those figures are hardly startling. Nothing much changed there, no matter what our pollies are trying to tell us otherwise. Howard was the one who resorted to fear. We can’t criticise that, hell, it worked. With all the talk about me being scared Ray, sounds like a bit of self analysis on your part to me.
I see you are blowing bubbles out that arse of yours again.
Instead of a sick attempt at personality assassination, which is water off a ducks back btw, before criticising anyone elses facts, try backing up your b/s with a few facts of your own ? I see you have yet to do any of that in any of your arguments on these pages.
Time to follow some of your own advice, put up or shut up ?
Howard was the one who resorted to fear. We can’t criticise that, hell, it worked.
Soooooo …. you’re answering “yes” to my question “do you want to return to the politics of fear”? Hard to conclude anything else there.
put up or shut up
Mate, I could put up a silk hankerchief or a limp lettuce leaf and it would pound your arguments to death. You are not offering a contest here – just more scrambled eggs on the floor. And the walls. And ceilings.
Whoa!
Return ? When the hell have we moved from a ‘realm of fear’ when it comes to our pollies ? Either persuasion.
More rhetoric from the Queen of Questions
congrats on the ton Iain.
“When the hell have we moved from a ‘realm of fear’ when it comes to our pollies ?”
24 November 2007.
Oh please. The election of Labor was the cure all ? As said here before, it wasn’t a win, it was a lack of options !
It is a pollies job, of either persuasion, to ensure that we unintelligent voters, remain in the realm of fear, and depression, so as they can come in and save us, as part of the campaign, at the following election.
As usual, you have attempted to steer away from your losing argument, re immigration and asylum seekers. You are so over the place, it is hard to see what argument you are trying to rebut with ?
Len (answering Ray’s question about the White Australia policy of “the 50′s and 60′s”)
It is the basis for, as you see it, all our discriminatory immigration premises of today. That is when segregation, as to who and who not, will be allowed into country really first began. All policies then, and since, have used that policy as a grounding.
You’re completely out to lunch.
1. The White Australia Policy has its origins in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901, one of the first pieces of legislation passed by the Commonwealth Parliament. This Act included the notorious “Dictation Test” where an immigrant had to satisfy an immigration official that they were fluent in a European language – the officer got to choose the passage used. They could selectively choose anything they wished, even something extremely difficult that even a native speaker would fail.
They were also able to choose the language itself – in one notorious case a Czech fluent in several European languages, including English, was failed on the basis of a dictation test issued in Scots Gaelic.
2. The policy continued up until the election of the Whitlam Government in late 1972 when it was comprehensively dismantled through amendments in 1973 and eventually the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 made all racial criteria illegal.
Short answer: our current immigration policies have nothing whatsoever to do with the White Australia Policy.
Far from using the WAP as a “grounding” for policy, we have completely rejected it.
Yes, well said, JM. Len’s not only splashed his breakfast all over the place, he’s trashed his lunch.
we unintelligent voters
Speak for yourself, Len.
Woohoo, happy hour has begun here at Iain Hall-land.
Hmm, let me lay an expression on ya.
Ever heard of the expression ten pound pom ?
Sort of reinforces the white Australia policy doesn’t it ?
Oops, another argument out to lunch ?
Assisted emmigration from the UK continues to this very day, whatever they want to call the scheme. A friend of mine was brought out, by the Australian government, to design and repair radar. It is happening all over the commercial sector. Immigration between the UK and Australia is still extremely flexible, under the “grandfather rule”. Obviously, something both you guys missed ?
Funny Ray, as it’s way past dinner ? But, you already know what time zone I live in, so your attempt at sarcasm, missed again. Christ you miss more times than Mr Magoo.
Oh, okay Len, we get it … you still support the White Australia Policy and you think (through your narrow paradigm) that it’s still an influence in Australia’s immigration policies and throughout the community at large. You might as well just bring out the white sheet.
Len: Ever heard of the expression ten pound pom ?
Yes, my ex-wife emmigrated under it. The scheme has not existed since 1970 (my ex-wife’s family came out in its last year).
And I think you missed the “1973″ and “1975″ bit of my comment. That’s when we threw out the entire policy.
Immigration between the UK and Australia is still extremely flexible,
No it isn’t. Since the entry of the UK into the Common Market (1973 again I think), it’s been difficult. I can attest to that, I’ve lived in the UK for quite a few years and retain permanent residency there, however getting citizenship is not easy even for me.
under the “grandfather rule”
You mean “patrialility”. This sort of condition is very common throughout the world, and there is nothing exceptionally “flexible” in the UK’s application of it. We have similar rules but we call them “family reunion”.
As to your other comments, you’re referring to skilled migration which many countries have. Particularly those who are “immigration countries”, ie those who have policies of increasing population via immigration, Australia is one, the UK is not.
Skilled migration paying no attention to a persons race which is the Australian system (so much so that the UK is reportedly considering adopting our “points system”) is the complete antithesis of the White Australia Policy.
Again Ray, another loss of argument, and another cheap shot across the bow ? Calling me a racist now ? I said numerous times in this argument Blinkey Bill, that race, or colour had nothing to do with it. Obviously, your eyes, along with your intellect are sadly slipping with age. You are the only one pulling the racism/race card in this argument. Get over yourself. Spend five minutes researching a premise, and present it. Argue it, without trivialities, hissy fits, nor name calling, on it’s merits, instead of attempting sensationalism, and calling someone a racist. We’ve had this argument before, and you got shot down in flames then as well.
I thought so as well JM, but, nup, she was told “The Grandfather Rule”. Maybe your scheme is the same I don’t know, don’t work for Immigration. I only know that, because a friend’s daughter is over there, working for a pollie of all things. She is Australian, but her grandfather was born in the UK, so she can stay, and work etc without special applications. Before leaving, she even had to choose nationality between England and Oz for her passport, even though born here.
Define Spade
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=spade
(ethnic slur) extremely offensive name for a Black person
Since you are advising others that you’ll only take expert opinion into account here I’ll do the same and take princeton’s word for the definition of a spade.
And while we are at it
double entendre: (an ambiguity with one interpretation that is indelicate)
Len
The “grandfather rule” may be a colloquial expression for the same thing – you’ll notice that “patriality” has a masculine root, and the UK legislation does have quirks in it that treat the children and grandchildren of UK men slightly differently from those of UK women (don’t ask me the details, I don’t remember them).
Other than that you’re right, the grandchildren of UK men (and often but not always women) generally can get a work permit. This is not that different from many other countries, although the specifics vary. What’s your point?
As for you invocation of the “racism card”, I think you’re the one playing it. You obviously have a very confused understanding of the history of Australia’s immigration policies, the current version of them, the application of them to particular cases etc, etc.
You state this confusion in your completely wrong-headed claim that our current policies are “grounded” in the White Australia Policy, a claim that is eye-rolling in its stupidity and when Ray makes the simple point that you seem to be very confused and perhaps even hankering for a return to the simplicities of pre-millennial bigotry, what do you do?
You defend yourself by claiming that Ray has played the “racism card”. He’s done nothing of the sort, and neither of I. We’ve just pointed out the errors in your logic.
A retort of “he called me a racist mum, so I can just ignore him can’t I?” is not an argument, nor an excuse for a mistake.
Facts are facts Len. The White Australia Policy is dead and buried. Australia now has an immigration policy that is very definitely not racially based.
Like JM said. You brought up the race issue, Len. I just queried you on why you thought the WAP was relevant to our current refuge debate. Your responses were hardly adequate and all you did was dig a deeper hole for yourself, from which you cried that I called you a racist. You’re still in that hole and, laughably, claiming you won the argument!
HJ, it’s hardly worth explaining this to you but obviously I was using the term spade in the context of the harmless cliche of “calling a spade (i.e. a digging implement) a spade (i.e. a digging implement)”. Geezus you like to try it on. Poor effort.
I do claim, that our immigration policy is based on white australia policy and those times. Ever considered, or heard of the term “precedent” ? Heard of that word ? Could it be that, precedent infers, that laws are in fact based on those that have come forth previously ?
Racism Tag ?
Rays
Yours is inferred. Merely btw to attempt to bolster up a failing argument.
Just because a person wishes to address/discuss a topic you guys automatically brand them racists. I don’t see the point why either of you inhabit pages such as these. Why bother ? You and Ray want to argue the topic fine, you want to carry on like a couple of schoolgirls (and apologies to schoolgirls), and have massive dummy spits when you inevitably lose arguments with premises weaker than the krudd’s leadership aspirations, don’t be surprised when someone calls you on it.
Len, congratulations, it looks like your dinner is all over the lounge room now too. You start your comment with “I do claim, that our immigration policy is based on white australia policy” and go on to (a) claim I’m bringing the race issue into the argument (b) you have shown both JM & I up.
Yeah, right. This is getting into weird territory. What “precedent” is set by the fact we once had a discriminatory, race-based immigration policy? How does that “precedent” influence the policy that replaced it? It’s like you’re saying the wall might be painted coffee colur now but many years ago it was painted white so the coffee colour is not really coffee because it is “based” on white.
Len: Ever considered, or heard of the term “precedent” ?
Yeah, it’s known as (I think) Judicial Law, ie. that created by a judge in a courtroom judgement. Sometimes judges will resort to common sense or accepted community practice (aka Common Law) in order to justify such rules.
But.
Ever heard of Parliamentary Law? The Parliament can pass legislation that just chucks the whole lot out the window and creates a whole new set of rules.
Which is exactly what the 1973 reforms and the Racial Discrimination Act did.
What went before no longer has any force. No more than the medieval witch trials.
I have explained my stance re all your dribble above, but you still continue to pull the race card, when it has nothing to do with racism.
What policy has replaced the WAP Ray ? Our supposed newer, more familial relationship with Asia these days ? I’ll tell you, as one who works in, and travels Asia at least a dozen times a year, no one there knows exactly how Australian’s feel about them. Racially, or otherwise. Every time they turn on a telly, a polly is sprouting something different. When it comes down to it, and all credit to them, as long as the aussie dollars keep coming in, they don’t give a f.r.a. !
Len: What policy has replaced the WAP Ray ?
(Allow me Ray, but please chime in with your thoughts)
Simple answer:- our current non-racially discriminatory policy. Go to the Department’s website and check out the points system. An applicant has to rack up a certain number of points based on age, skills, relationships with current Australian residents etc, etc. Get enough points and you’re in.
Show me one thing there that says “race” or color.
I think the term you are looking for JM is Case Law, and that is exactly what precedent is. Rarely is precedent overturned, unless a new statute has been put on the books, which puts that case law in abeyance. (Jeremy will no doubt put me straight probably in the morning ?)
Maybe the current immigration law is not racially biased JM, but for certain, you can bet the ranch on the fact, that the laws they are based on, are. If they weren’t, why did so many refugees in the last few years, attempt to travel here to beat that queue, and not even bother with the Australian immigration process ?
Sorry, just an addenda to make the point stronger. Consider three applicants with equal skills and the same age. One from England, the others from (say) Thailand and Botswana.
Who gets preference? None of ‘em, all three are treated equally.
You’re wrong Len, just flat out wrong.
Len (I just saw your 12:21 comment), you’re being completely incoherent.
unless a new statute has been put on the books, which puts that case law in abeyance.
So you agree with me now that precedent has no application in the face of new legislation?
the current immigration law is not racially biased JM,
So you’re agreeing with me and Ray?
the laws they are based on, are [racially based]
Name one.
I like your idealism JM, but, (and knowing that this will bring the inevitable spray), what if there was only one spot ?
Who do you think would be successful ?
The poor bast*rd from Botswana ?
So you agree with me now that precedent has no application in the face of new legislation?
Depends. Geez, judges are still abiding by judgements in the early 19th century. Even with new legislation being written, unless case specific, judges don’t want their judgements appealed to a higher court, so are reticent to overturn what is and has been accepted in the past, at least until specifically ordered to do so.
Our laws come/came from English case law. Most were written in the 18th century, and brought out here, upon first settlement. They were racially biased as we all know.
Time for bed, continue tomorrow.
Len: what if there was only one spot ?
Actually I do know the answer to this Len.
The first to apply.
This happens every year when the immigration quota is set. There are usually more applicants than the quota allows so once its filled for the year you’re out of luck even if you have enough points. You have to wait for the following year.
This is a nuance in the points system. The system sets two numbers – the required number of points which gets varied occasionally and the total spots available. Spots are filled with applicants having the required number of points until there are none left. This continues through the year until there are no spots left, or if there are at the end of the year, then marginal applicants are considered.
It’s a simple legislated procedure that is very definitely not racially based.
Not much more for me to add, JM, except to say to Len that the reason Asians might be confused about how we feel about them is because of a bloke named John Howard and a woman named Pauline Hansen.
It’s a perception he & she created. But it’s not our policy to discriminate and it wasn’t under Howard either.
And you reckon they don’t mind being looked down on?
Oh geezus, I’m going to bed. Try not to throw your breakfast around in the morning, Len.
Yes mummy
Ok, caffeine has kicked in, here we go ……
Ah, Pauline Hanson ?
Why do you think she got in, and had her head on the tube more times than both Howard and Beasley combined ?
Simple really. She managed to tap into an electorate’s raw nerve.
I am no supporter of Hanson, but she was successful in raising an issue, that hit us all where it mattered, and that the majority of the Australian population was concerned about. Her maiden speech was a zinger, and probably the only one in our lifetimes, that we all probably remember, whether or not we are interested in politics ? Deny it all you like guys, but it’s history. But, the debate was not seen to be “politically correct”, and more important to the egg heads in Canberra, the debate would be seen as a massive slap in the face, of the rest of the world, and we would be forever be branded as racists. Ironically, on a smaller scale, what you two are trying to do to me here ?
It was only a concerted effort, by both major parties labeling her as a racist, did it all go wrong. The major two parties saw that as the only way they could claw back their support base. The majority of the voting population at the time, agreed with her hypotheses, hence the reason for her incredible popularity. It took nearly three years, of concerted efforts by not only the other political parties, but also a one sided press, to undermine her, and finally remove her.
So, what does that tell us ?
The average Australian is concerned about immigration, and wants it debated. We do care about the future composition, race structure, of this country. You guys can sit there, attempting to look pretty, and attempt to be seen as being politically correct, but in reality, we all care what our country will be like in the upcoming decades. We have abundant wealth, not only in natural resources, but also more importantly, space. Asia, as well as the rest of the world, eye us, for those qualities. Before you pacifists call me alarmist, just look at Australia’s military presence on the NW Cape, as well as it’s commitment to Asia, militarily ? This country has abundant wealth, wealth unseen or dreamed of by a, for the most part, poorer Asia. Asian economies apart from Japan and China, are built on sand. They are paper economies. They have no inherent wealth to tap into. They want what we have, badly. They have not the military to invade us, so they have done the next best thing. purchased it !
Brand me a racist if you like, but those are the facts of the situation. About time you ‘dream weavers’ considered such things, when entering into a serious debate such as immigration.
Scrape the eggs off the wall, Len. Your whole argument is based on the false premise that “the majority of the Australian population” supported Hansen’s extreme views.
Sure, she enjoyed large support but it was nowhere near a majority. Even in her own electorate of Ipswich I think she got about 30% of the primary vote, meaning 70% didn’t vote for her. She got in on preferences from the Liberal candidate who had replaced her when Howard dumped her at the last minute for her offensive remarks.
The Libs would never preference Labor, hence we got that appalling, almost illiterate and very unintelligent maiden speech that you now describe as a “zinger”. Talk about rewriting history, you must live in a different universe.
The “raw nerve” she scratched (in a minority) was the redneck nerve. Yes, Aussies – a majority of them – are concerned about immigration. But the vast majority are not racists or rednecks and do not support Hansen’s extreme anti-Asian, anti-aborigine & anti-muslim views.
It’s now quite clear that you do though.
Anyway Len, this post is about refugees, not the wider issue of immigration. We diverted into it because you brought up the defunct & discarded White Australia Policy immigration policy for eons ago as somehow being relevant to the refugee debate of today. You have patently failed to prove the relevance of race to not only refugees but also to immigration in general.
Ray.
I dare you – double dare you – to go to tell an aboriginal person that you’re proud of yourself for calling a spade a spade.
Bet you don’t like the response.
Like your “retard” comment, it illustrates a very real lack of sensitivity to others.
Lool HJ, I have never before heard the word “spade” used as a derogatory, racist term. Not until you dug it up. Obviously you’re familiar with it but I am not. Stop pulling your dick in the corner.
Again you (incompetently I might add), are selectively quoting again, and attempting to pull the racism card, in a losing argument Ray. No politician wins directly from primary votes. I thought you had more nouse than to come up with something so lacking cred as that ?
I didn’t say that the majority of the Australian population supporter, rather, the majority of the Australian population supported the need for the debate. Caught out selectively quoting again ?
I think the comment, from memory in her maiden speech, that hit home the most with the electorate was, and I quote :
“Between 1984 and 1995, 40 % of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate. Of course, I will be called racist but, if I can invite whom I want into my home, then I should have the right to have a say in who comes into my country.”
http://www.australian-news.com.au/maiden_speech.htm
Pretty powerful stuff, then and now ?
Didn’t that get the debate going. Don’t try and tell me Australians aren’t racist. Your dreaming. We all remember back to the days of Menzies et al ?
A usual lefties response from you Ray. Black and white, no grey. Pure sensationalism again from Mr Dixon. B*ullshit ! It is not as cut and dried as you seem to think.
You are calling everyone, that yearns for an honest debate, on the subject of immigration, a redneck now ?
Man, there is an honest, mature, and logical response for ya ! sic
Ray, you still haven’t even put forward a cogent argument of your own yet. You are quick to criticise anyone who has the balls to have a go, arguing the matter, then call them racists, rednecks, or spades.
Cut out the girly side-swipes, you are just making yourself look even more the fool.
Len, you are (idiotically) mounting an argument IN FAVOUR of discriminating against refugees & migrants on the basis of their race.
And you try to label me stupid?
Just put it out to the general population, Len: “Should we deny Asians residency in Australia? Yes/No”
I don’t have to disprove your clearly redneck views, Len. You made them so you need to prove them. Go on, go out and find a credible survey that says the majority of Australians want to bring back the White Australia Policy.
And do it before you throw your lunch around the room too.
Man, we are in real cuckoo land here.
It appears you are the only one in cuckoo land Ray. I don’t have to throw my lunch around the room, merely, just wait until you have your customary dummy spit. Looks like I don’t have to wait long…..
ffs Ray, put your glasses on.
Selective quoting again ?
For the upteenth time, I want the debate ! Your brain is obviously having trouble wrapping itself, that far into a sentence ?
My opinion, as yours, has little weight in this discussion, UNTIL that discussion is held on a larger stage. It is a debate, that every Australian should weigh into, don’t you agree ? An argument held on its merits, not overtaken by sensationalists looking for glory like yourself. It is a serious subject, and one that has been long overlooked, as being too hard, or seen to be too divisive.
Again, you seem to have a serious problem debating the issue. Rather, you find it easier to attack the ‘man’.
Nice touch, but getting pretty tiresome.
It’s not a serious subject in this day & age, Len. Wanting to debate bringing in race discrimination to our immigration policies is only “serious” in the eyes and tiny minds of the tiny minority of racists.
Over & out, I’ve got to have lunch (on the table, not off the floor where yours is).
Yawn, another racist tag, and again the cheap shot from Mr Dixon.
You must have some pretty large splinters in your ass from sitting on that fence for so long ?
It’s not serious huh ? Obviously, you thought serious enough to brand all those, that didn’t agree with your outlook as racist ? Why all the hoo-ha then ?
Again you have it all ass about.
The debate should be on levels of immigration into this country.
The debate should then concentrate on what the makeup should be of that intake.
The debate should then, without playing the race card, should concentrate on what proportions of immigration is required to build on a lacking skills base, that this economy needs
Why are all people such as yourself, political correctness blowholes, so fearful of such a debate ?
Iain ?
Trying in your ever subtle way to change the subject ?
“Please explain ?”
Len, go back and read your earlier comment today, here:
http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/asylum-seekers-and-exaggerated-claims-of-persecution/#comment-50298
You are either endorsing Hansen’s anti-Asian stance or, at the very least, wanting to debate the issue of restricting migrants based on their race.
I agree we need to debate immigration levels. But your back pedalling in your latest comment doesn’t hide the fact that you want the issue of race included in that debate.
And you can count me – and the vast majority of decent people – out from that sort of debate. It’s not up for discussion and you don’t get an invitation to the table if you’re going to throw race into the mix.
Now, I am done arguing with you about this. I know you’ll never admit you lost but the reality is you have egg all over your face (and on your walls, the floor, the ceiling, etc)
Good day to you.
Again, you are misconstuing what I wrote, to attempt to salvage your incorrect premise Ray. Backpeddling, bloody hell, in your dreams Bullwinkle ! Boy, is that the pot calling the kettle black !
I am not the one who has that egg dribbling down my face Ray. That is your forte.
Again, you bring the decision making process into it, when all that is required from you, is to finally admit, that there needs to be a public debate on the issue. As mentioned above, is not a typical leftists’ finality yes/no decision making process that is required here, rather, a consensus. Even after all this time, you simply cannot seem to get your head around that fact.
Why are you so frightened of the debate Ray ? You seem to be able to throw your cares to the wind discussing everything else here, why not immigration ?
Something in the closet you are afraid may come out ?
For the last time, Len: I am not interested in debating bringing race into our immigration policies.
Maybe, but you were the one that drew the race ace out of the pack ?
No Len, the first time I mentioned “race” was in response to you raising the White Australia Policy as being somehow relevant to the refugee debate. Here:
http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2010/06/29/asylum-seekers-and-exaggerated-claims-of-persecution/#comment-50240
I merely asked you why you brought it up. It begged the question. Thereafter you proceeded to lose the plot. If I inferred that you were starting to show racist tendencies that’s because you kept saying we need to revisit the WAP and Hanson’s views. But we don’t need to do that and I truly believe that only people who have racist tendencies would say we do.
Let’s just end it here. That is it from me but go ahead and give us one of your hilarious last words.
” I have never before heard the word “spade” used as a derogatory, racist term.”
Must have been under a seriously big rock.
I saw a pig fly this morning too.
I’m going to leave you to it now Ray. I’ve made my point here and now FROM YOUR BOLD AND UPPERCASE arguments to Len, you’re neck veins sound about to burst and I for one don’t wish to be an agent of your early demise.
Still pulling your dick, HJ? Talk about veins about to burst!
Btw, arguing with Len is something I do on a break from real life. It’s a rather stress-free outlet and beats belting your sav like you do.
Oh pshaw. Meow scratch scratch.
You have no incentive to learn the history of immigration in this country Ray. You have no concept of the past, and how it relates to current policy shifts, and policy workshops. You call yourself a political commentator ? Every major political policy decision has its roots buried in what has transgressed prior to it. The is why they call it precedent. A fact you loathe to want to understand. Careful, your ignorance of the issue is showing again ?
For the upteenth time, you still will not acknowledge, that we first need the debate. Nup says Mr Dixon. Let everyone in, or we’ll stick a bloody big “racist” sticker on your forehead. Typical leftists rhetoric.
The refs to history are there to purely show, that the policies are already out there, and have been for years. We all have to consider that these so called “temporary protection visas”, aren’t exactly bloody temporary are they ? Know of any group that has gone back ?
It is again, not race, it is about pure economics. Another fact you can’t seem, or are reticent to want to grapple. Respective governments, have framed immigration, to allow for the intake of vast numbers of skilled labour, that we supposedly so desperately need. That cannot be achieved, if we receive boatload after boatload of unskilled labour, thanks to “cry hards” such as yourself. Our economy cannot sustain it. Our economy can only withstand so many immigrants at one time, regardless of how that number is made up. Admittedly that flow of refugees is slowing as previously discussed. Again, could it be, that Australia is not seen as the soft touch it was once seen to be ? Another fact you can’t seem to grapple. There seem to be a lot of those facts mounting up there Ray ?
Again you lefties cry, yep no problems. We all pay taxes, we can afford it.
Then a few years down the track, we are crying out for skilled labour, have a million or so unskilled workers on the dole que, and then all of a sudden cry (like Rudd has in the last week), Sh*t, wtf happened ?
Your premise is rosy Ray, but again, based in fantasy.
Again Ray arguing from his crotch. Pretty close to the mark HJ for God to get his dander up like that ?
Your last fifty comments or so show anything but, someone arguing from a stress free position. Quite the reverse. I can see the capillaries on your face about to pop any moment.
Talk about “the little red engine that could” ?
(Len is now having a debate with himself. And he’s still losing!)
Just for your information, HJ, the bold is not a sign of anger. It’s a way of saying that I am firm about this – i.e. that race plays no part in the refugee or wider immigration debate. As for the “spade” reference, I have already said what context I used it in and it was entirely consistent. And I’ve told you that I never knew that some people (like you) use it as a racist insult. I’ve never heard of that definition before. I don’t know why I bother to explain this to you but I guess it must get lonely over there in the corner while you pull your pud and no one will debate with you. Besides, you’re another one who requires no taxing thought to respond to.
So you’re here as a substitute for mastibating Ray?
Yuk!
For a bloke that closed his own blog because he’s just got too much else to focus on right now and can’t see that changing any time soon, you’re spending a lot of time belting out shite here.
It would appear that you’ve had to make that time up by giving up something else. Now we know what.
Well given that both your comments here and your previous use of that time produce absilutely nothing save to make you feel better, at least the substitution isn’t a waste of YOUR time.
Look on the bright side. You’re eyes won’t be getting any worse, and it explains why your show so blind a faith in the ALP.
More flying porcine.
Halleluja, finally, it’s beginning to see the light !
If that be the case Ray, why have you called everyone here, that doesn’t agree to your position a racist ?
More fuel needed, for that little red engine that could ?
(HJ is now debating himself too. Only he doesn’t have a topic, has nothing sensible to say and he’s still standing in the corner pulling pud)
(and Len has gone complete full circle – jerk)
Len
I think he’s about done.
Slowly – as his former PM once said.
It might be time to do him a favour and stop.
Praps he’ll wander off to the mastibatorium and get a different type of thrill.
I must say that it makes a bloke a little uncomfortable to know that another bloke is using time he would mormally spend “alone”, arguing politics with him.
(HJ is now attempting to engage Len in fellow loony speak)
Btw, I can do all this AND get my work done. HJ can’t because he’s got one hand on pud.
Yep, HJ, all that’s left is to find the ‘apple’ for the mouth ?
Don’t know how many times people have to say the same thing. Perhaps, that should read, how many ways a persons lines can be twisted ?
Again Ray, you ignore the issue, and aim for the commenter. Yawn !
Sad really Len.
Lefty though – cant expect a great deal more.
Good argument at the start, make a couple of adjustments or contradictions to their point though and you become a racist, wanker, bigot, wife beater, or whatever they can think of to take the heat off their argument’s demise.
Sad really.
(It’s really funny watching these two talk nutsoesque to each other)
Len (and after this I’ll adopt Ray’s tactic): Every major political policy decision has its roots buried in what has transgressed prior to it. The is why they call it precedent
This is nuts. The direction of the first step doesn’t determine the journey – haven’t you heard of a change in direction? We are not forever locked into what has gone before, if you want to fetishize “precedent” we’d still be accepting cannibalism, harems and child-labor.
As a nation we changed our mind a few decades ago. Ray is absolutely correct. Race is not an acceptable framework for immigration. Numbers, skills, age mix etc all make sense. Race is completely unacceptable.
Thank Christ you’re here, JM. You have a go. I’ve given up on talking sense to Len. As for HJ, I suggest you don’t bother. Unless you want a spray from his ‘activities’ in the corner.
I am not making race the issue, JM, that was what Ray was continually attempting to do, and failing btw, to derail the thread. Again, race has nothing to do with the argument at all, its simple economics !
Again, all politicians are locked into what works ? That is what gets them into trouble. Times and attitudes change over time, but time and time again, it has been proven, that they are slow to react to it. It usually takes a shitty policy decision to bring out that change. Surely, the last few years, of the Hanson and the Tampa saga has proved that ?
Isn’t that what I have been trying to say ?
Why is it, that being told to allow boatloads of unqualified refugees in to the country, filling up an immigration quota is what we need ? I am open to the plight of refugees, BUT haven’t we, as a country, taken our fair share of refugees ? Who ascertains the number, and how ? What happens to the “wanted occupation” immigration list ? It gets lost.
Since Howard (and don’t forget, I thought the guy was incompetent), the arrival of boats in Australian waters has slowed to a crawl. Again, why is that ? The Pacific Solution ? The word has got back, that the boats will not be able to land and the passengers, will not be able to automatically walk on to Australian soil, without their credibility/bone fides being checked, that’s why. (not going to repeat that again).
I am not for a quell to immigration. I am not for a move to a revamped White Australia Policy either. We need to move to a skills based immigration policy, which is what respective governments are trying to do. We are in dire need (so we are being told), of tradesmen et al, so that is where the immigration is being aimed. What is wrong with that ? Surely, that can’t be seen as being racist ?
Again, our country can only absorb a certain number of immigrants, from all sources, per year. Whatever race, colour, creed, nationality et al, the “wanted” list should be sourced and filled. Then if there are spaces left in the quota, then fine, refugees.
I still find it incredibly poignant, that ever since “the chimp” brought in his policy, how the arrivals have slowed to now, nearly non existent. Again, it only shows, that perhaps the situation in the source countries is not as bad, as we have been led to believe ?
Ah the “blog crawler” has come forth with another zinger !
Keep swinging lad, you may hit one eventually.
(Len is now confusing refugees with immigration policy. He’s throwing his dinner at the tv as we speak)
You continue to make a fool of yourself about a subject, that is fairly obvious, that you know nothing about Ray. You seem to know a lot about the throwing of food around the place. Spend time honing your skills do ya ?
You want to continue with the cheap shots, I’ll play. You want to argue, argue the topic. If you can’t or wont, why bother ?
Len: I am not making race the issue,
Yes you are. You quote the toxic redhead with approval, you say you want a “debate”. You may be using code (with the occasional slip), but you are making race the issue.
(And you reinforce your points with nonsense about how our laws a “grounded” in the supposedly “racially based” laws of good ‘ol England – a totally laughable concept in itself. There are many questionable things about England and the UK laws but racially based common law isn’t one of them.)
As for economics, consider that it’s generally accepted that about 1-1.5% of Australia’s annual growth over the long term has been driven by immigration. You want to stop immigration? Fine, that’s a debate. But consider the consequences first.
You want to stop immigration based on the race of the applicant? Not fine. That’s not a debate. It just isn’t. It’s not acceptable. At. All.
You want to stop refugees? That’s not a debate either. a.) their economic impact, positive or negative is very small because their numbers are small. b.) we have obligations. Any number of my ex-relations could tell you that. My ex-neighbours (until they died a few years ago) could tell you that – they came here from Germany as refugees in the mid-30′s.
Give it up Len, the basis of your argument is a cesspit and you’ll be the one to drown in it.
JM
What code ? Must be a real top secret one, I don’t know what code you’re talking about.
Why do you NOT think old law was racially based ? What crap ! What do you base that on ?
Another one who needs to learn how to read more than five words placed together. Read above what I said about immigration. It is fairly obvious that you haven’t bothered.
Have another read through just the last couple, it is obvious that you have to do it again, as you simply didn’t get my point, regardless of how simple I attempted to make it.
Be careful JM, your ignorance is showing, and calling me a racist, like your little mate from Bright, just shows lack of concentration ability, and failure to come up with a cogent argument.
JM
Missed the questions below.
a.) their economic impact, positive or negative is very small because their numbers are small.
Hmm, what about the Centrelink benefits they are granted upon acceptance ? Thought about that ? Lets just consider those for a minute. Example, just a small figure, say 100. That seems fair ?
multiply 100 times
$700 a fortnight in dole/family payments
$500 a week for a vocational retraining course somewhere ?
$800 a week to employ a language teacher, to teach them English upon acceptance ? This can however be split between 40 or so.
$125 a week (and this is a very conservative estimate), to feed, clothe, house, per person. Doesn’t include the mandatory medicals, immunizations et al.
b.) we have obligations. Any number of my ex-relations could tell you that. My ex-neighbours (until they died a few years ago) could tell you that – they came here from Germany as refugees in the mid-30′s.
That is the marvel of Australia JM. We all come from somewhere else.
Again, you confuse the issue. The complaint isn’t against refugees being accepted. Merely, economically, how many can we afford to take.
(Refugees are now ruining Len’s retirement plans)
Using that analogy,
yours as well sunshine ?
Think about it for a minute Ray,
Ho ho, perhaps not so funny now is it ?
(Ray checks property portfolio. Buoyed by the news that demand for housing caused by increased population has seen the values rise by 20% in the past 12 months he then prays for more boats to arrive)
Len, we don’t have to speculate on the costs of refugees. Just go and get the budget figures, break them out into amounts spent on immigrants and refugees, add ‘em up. (But please exclude the costs of the bogus “Pacific Solution” which was unnecessary and mindbogglingly costly compared to a more reasonable course of action.)
I’ll wait.
Then tell me how a couple of thousand refugees are “swamping” the country and destroying our economy.
They aren’t Len. Just give it a miss will ya.
It’s late, and being eofy, seeing double, but before closing for the night, will answer yours.
The budget figures I have seen, do not include the above, hence why I mentioned those. Never mind Pacific crap, or Indonesia for that matter. Do you honestly think that it will stop at just a few thousand ? Surely, a memory jolt back to the end of Vietnam will ring a few bells ? If the doors were again opened, how long do you think it would take every available boat, to set sail ? That is the only reason as to why the flow has slowed to a crawl in the last couple of years. The word has got back to the smugglers, at the source, that the doors have been shut. Don’t forget for them, this is not a humanitarian exercise, it is a money making exercise, and a very profitable one ?
I admire you guys for your tenacity, but it appears that you just can’t see beyond the now. Don’t get me wrong, your compassion is great, but it should be tempered with just a dose of common sense, and future foresight ?
BTW for naught where is your criticism for countries like Indonesia. Those countries that just fuel them up, point the boats our way, and let em loose ?
I am again not saying that we should not take our fair share of “legitimate” refugees, BUT, that it should be tempered, with a bit of common sense.
Len, let’s agree to restrict this to refugees, and not confuse it with immigration, ok?
Let’s take the Vietnamese. About 140,000 arrived in Australia – that’s about the same as our annual immigrant intake. So over a few years we got one years worth of immigrants via a combination of boats, planes and family reunion.
Let’s look at what happened.
You claim that all of those people have been bludgers on the rest of us and ripping us off for our taxes – don’t back away now, that’s what you said, you gave us the numbers.
Is that true?
No. Coincidentally, today we had a going-away lunch on one of the projects I’m working on currently for a Vietnamese woman who came to Australia as a very young child with her family on a boat. She now is a very skilled professional on an excellent salary with her own family and (I presume) a home of her own. She is very definitely not a “Centerlink bludger” or whatever other euphemism you want to use, and has built her life and contributed as much to Australia and our prosperity as anyone else, even people born here. Native born does not mean that your contributions are more valuable.
How about another Vietnamese woman I worked with a couple of years ago who also arrived on a boat and is now doing a skilled, highly technical, although not particularly remarkable job with a major multi-national (there’s a good chance you own one of their products) company?
Or the owners of the grocery store I shop at fairly regularly in Melbourne?
Are these people bludgers? Are these people a drain on our economy?
Let’s take this a bit further with other refugees. Peter Abeles? Arrived in Australia as a refugee and built up TNT virtually from nothing. What should I say to his family? That he was trash?
What should I say to my ex-neighbour who arrived in Australia during the ’30′s from Germany having studied at one of the major physics schools there and subsequently established a very good career as an engineer with one of Australia’s most prominent manufacturing companies? (Or rather what should I say to his son who started a successful and long-lived local publicly listed software company?)
All these people were refugees, and all built lives for themselves here. And they all contributed to Australia’s growth and prosperity.
What would you say to them? Or what would you do? Send them back?
Being loathe to be called a racist from the yahoo in the wings JM, I agree to a certain extent. My problem, is clearly defined, by taking a drive in Richmond in Melbourne. I don’t know the equivalent in other cities, but that was pretty frightening. I didn’t say all JM, some, and a large amount as well.
What happened to the thousands of immigrants, from all over the world, during that same period JM ? These are immigrants with money, assets, and most importantly, skills that we supposedly needed at the time. That is what I am talking about. Were they shown the sorry full sign ? No balance ?
For those arrivals that have a red hot go, terrific. Good on them, and they have my respect, and I salute them. BUT, there are so many that don’t. They moan, grizzle, and just spend their days walking the streets badmouthing their benefactors. Even after thirty some years, times spent in the area have seen groups of them just hanging around, with no intention of assimilating into a new country or culture. Just recreate the one the supposedly ran from, in terror ? Yet, even with their supposed loyalty to the old country, none of them want to go back do they ? I don’t get it ? They continue to badmouth us, at every opportunity, but do nothing but sit on their ar*e, in apparent efforts to improve their lot. You criticise them, your labeled a racist. You get attacked by their youth gangs, again your labeled a racist. The term “temporary protection visa” is nothing but a bloody joke. Look what happened the last time, it was considered time for them to go home. They all threatened to mass suicide by a hunger strike ? The words out, we’re a soft touch.
Again, I am not against taking refugees, nor am I against immigration. My premise is Balance . That has always been my premise in this argument (interference from the wings, notwithstanding). That is the trick, and that balance is way out of whack, and has been for years. Problem though is, the whole matter is not politically savory. It’s a no win situation for any pollie that wants to honestly tackle it. That’s why they don’t.
You forgot also the Ukrainians in 49 I think it was. They did a terrific job. Wonderful people, and work hard, contribute to a community, and have no intentions of taking gathered wealth back. A terrific example of what it should be like from people who really had a go.
You discussed a Vietnamese lady you are helping. Having people land on my doorstep, on a daily basis, looking for work, I wonder if the story is the same for the Aussie kid that desperately needs work ? Do they get to benefit from the same one on one service ? Somehow, I would doubt it. The stories I have not only been told, but seen first hand, of reverse discrimination is rife out there. It happens, and a lot. No one seems to comment about that, as it is sooooo politically incorrect, and you are instantly branded a racist.
Len is saying that “many” Asian refugees are a “problem” and don’t assimilate and what he wants is “balance”. How do we achieve that balance in our refugee intake, Len, without discriminating on the basis of race?
And don’t go off the handle again.
Len, I don’t know what to say at this point.
You find Richmond “pretty frightening”. Funnily enough, that’s where the grocery(s) I mentioned are located. I don’t find Victoria St. frightening at all.
You also mention the “Balts” (ie Ukranians who formed part of the first wave of post-war immigrants). They reportedly suffered quite a bit of opposition, I don’t remember, I wasn’t born at the time. But then there were the Italians and the Greeks, and also the “ten pound poms” you had a go at earlier in this thread.
Is there any immigrant group you actually accept?
Now “reverse discrimination”. I can’t say I’ve ever encountered it. Quite the opposite. My family have been in this country for a very long time since colonial days. There are subtle distinctions that most people barely notice, but I do. I often notice when I find myself talking to a new person who – like me – is a scion of an old family. There are certain habits of behaviour and small inflections of accent that indicate “old family, good background”.
They open doors. If you want to get resentful Len I wouldn’t bother with new arrivals who pretty universally “have a go” as they’ve no other choice, I’d have a go at people from families like mine who have the background and the contacts to get ahead despite relative lack of talent or personal dissolution.
We change back to a policy of immigration that is “skills-based”, regardless of where they come from.
I have said this many times in this argument. I don’t give a fra what the colour of your skin is, or your religion, if you have the skills and/or experience that I am looking for, the job’s yours.
Thats what I have been saying from the start.
Refugees take numbers away from that quota, and don’t forget, the total number for ALL immigration is limited. The more we accept from one avenue, the less is available for specialist “required” immigration.
That’s my point.
Reverse discrimination, oh God, I have JM.
Not now thank God, but a teenager, just left school, oh hell yeah. I’m not the only one either.
I will accept anyone JM, anyone. But there are a few rules. The first, and main one, is that they want to be here, and want to be a part of Australia, with all it’s different nationalities. The problem is that they don’t. This alone is one of the reason why that dickhead Hanson got a massive groundswell of support, before people realised she was a ratbag. When my folks arrived, hell, Dad stacked and cleaned bloody bricks for a crust.
The only thing I am resentful about JM, is that people, with skills that we so (supposedly) desperately need are bumped off the list, so as we can have the joy of being seen as being politically correct with the rest of the planet. The rest of the world btw that are no where near as benevolent as Australia ?
Len, I take it your comment @ 12.11 am was in response to me.
The refugee numbers don’t have a noticeable impact on total immigration so can we stop dragging that in to the debate? And you haven’t been “saying from the start” that you don’t care where refugees come from or what their race is. You made references to their counties of origin, how they get here, the WAP and to Hanson and you wanted the debate to include those extreme discriminatory views from the past because, in your words, “Australians are racists”.
You’ve backed away from that now by saying it’s all about “skills”. But we do not assess refugees on that basis. Yet you claim Asians in Richmond are layabouts & violent and you hold that up as an example of why we shouldn’t take them as refugees.
I reckon it’s pretty fair to conclude that you DO see race as being part of the issue. And don’t scream, “you called me a racist”. That is a fair observation, Len, and you haven’t said anything to make me think otherwise.
So should we or shouldn’t we take race into account when assessing refugees? Remember we don’t get to invite who arrives here seeking asylum. And remember, as JM has pointed out, that refugees do make valuable contributions to our society.
That’s where you are incorrect Ray. Again, Australia can only accept a certain amount of immigrants total over a given period of time. If that number is filled with unskilled refugee numbers, what spaces are left for those on the “wanted skills” list ? None. That is partially why we are suffering such a shortage, of especially tradesmen today.
I haven’t backed away from anything.
I have always said immigration should be about skillset, and if we have space left, fine, refugees (from anywhere), off-wanted list, whatever the government wishes or deems appropriate. Sh*t, don’t know how many times I have said that in this debate.
I have said previously many times here also, that what happened, once Howard brought in “The Pacific Solution” ? The flow refugees slowed to a trickle. Doesn’t anyone at least raise their eyebrows, and question why ? That is why the refugee problem, is no longer such a large problem as was previously the case. It was a problem. Part of my job in the early nineties was to do a low fly by over the boats, as part of my duties. It was a problem then, and hence, part of the reason why I am so passionate about the subject of illegal immigration.
Immigration is a serious issue, and should be dealt with seriously. Again, it is all about balance. What do we want for our country, in forty or fifty years ? That may be deemed as being racist, but it is a valid concern. Where is your criticism of all those countries that were located along the way to Australia Ray ? They all racists too ?
For about the tenth time, you are trying to brand me as a racist.
For the tenth time, it is about skills, and also, to what extent should we be the dumping ground or destination point for refugees ? The latest arrivals are from Iran and similar middle eastern ports of call. Whoa, hang on a minute, surely bloody Greece, Italy et al, are only a three hour cruise from the demarcation points, why they hell come all the way round the planet ? Ever thought about that ?
I forgot about the Hanson thing.
How else do you explain her initial incredible popularity ?
She tapped into a concern, others actually stating paranoia, about immigration, as well as Keating/Howards major policy shift, wanting us to be classed as part of Asia. We needed and wanted the debate. It was only then, when she lost all semblance of credibility, and crashed and burned.
Something else to consider, remember back to Woomera ? The burning of the place ?
A sign of desperation ? Or perhaps a wish to hasten the process, and perhaps divert attention from their true plight, or maybe that should read, lack of it.
Len: If that number is filled with unskilled refugee numbers, what spaces are left for those on the “wanted skills” list ? None. That is partially why we are suffering such a shortage, of especially tradesmen today.
Len, the current annual immigration quota is about 140,000. The current number of annual claimants for asylum or refugee status is somewhere around 2,000.
That’s hardly “filled”.
Refugees are not the cause of the shortage of tradespeople – demand and failure to educate them locally is.
When my folks arrived, hell, Dad stacked and cleaned bloody bricks for a crust.
Good on him, I congratulate him. When my ancestors arrived they bent their backs, stuck spades* in the ground and built houses where there were none before. My ex-wifes ancestors left their own countries with nothing after being expelled or otherwise forced out, and built new lives here. The Vietnamese refugees worked hard, built up businesses and bought houses for their families.
Same thing. Everyone works to better themselves and look after their kids. Race and origin be damned.
hang on a minute, surely bloody Greece, Italy et al, are only a three hour cruise from the demarcation points, why they hell come all the way round the planet ? Ever thought about that
Ever thought about the implications and actual meaning of this statement?
Let’s break it down shall we?
1. what is a “demarcation point”? Are Athens or Rome demarcation points? No s**t Sherlock, there aren’t too many international airports in the world but I seem to recall that Athens and Rome are amongst them. What’s your point?
2. what do you mean by “cruise”? That many of the Greek immigrants to Australia came from the poverty stricken islands (like Kalymnos where something like 25% of the native born population live in Australia – to the point where I’ve seen Australian registered cars that have been imported from Australian on Kalymnos**.
So freaking what? You’re confusing immigration of people from poor places to wealthier places with refugees again. You’re also saying that those immigrants were unskilled – or rather that their skills, even if they were only the strength of their backs were unwanted and of no value.
Let’s put it simply. Were the Italian and Greek immigrants who worked on the Snowy Mountains Scheme of absolutely no value to the nation?
Were they just lazy, parasitical bastards who we’ve been carrying for the last 50-60 years?
Or were they just like every other immigrant and refugee group? People with gumption to get up and go to the other side of the world and make a new life for themselves?
* The little “debate” that has occurred here over the last few days re. the meaning of the word ‘spade’ is bloody ridiculous – can we please stop?
** Sorry for bring this up, but it goes back to my back-packing days.
I am talking pre Howard. When the arrivals were much higher, and more regular in number ?
Perhaps you misunderstood my point. I am not talking about immigration from Eu, Greece or Italy, no my point is, for the, say Afghans, why are they currently risking all, coming all the way to Australia, surely, countries in the Med are a closer and safer bet, especially, if things are supposed to be that dire ? That fact alone, has always made me suspicious. Why risk traveling half way round the bloody planet, when a three hour cruise on the med would ensure their escape just as efficiently ? Ever wondered about that ?
Also, I am not talking about the immigrants that came here unskilled. I also have empathy for those that not only worked on schemes such as the Snowy, but also bloody died up there. My point is, unskilled intake was planned. These people didn’t just hit a leaky boat, and land here did they ? No, they went through the process, applying correctly through Australian immigration, and waited patiently their turn. Boat people don’t. It’s like opening your door, and finding your mother in law standing at the door step with a suitcase, and saying she is staying permanently ?