A tough stance on refugees doesn’t make me a racist

Dave says:

07:02am | 22/06/11

Get ready for all the hysterical abuse from the bleeding heart leftards…

*sigh* says:

08:07am | 22/06/11

Watching ACA or TT doesn’t make you educated.

Kevin says:

08:11am | 22/06/11

@Erick
You accuse “pro-boat people” of being “ignorant, prejudiced and racist”.  You state that “they assume that most Australians are white, racist, ignorant, and stupid” and call them “bigots who regard their fellow citizens with contempt”.
It seems to me that, in regard to these so-called “pro-boat people”, you are guilty of exactly the same things that you accuse the “pro-boat people” of doing in regard to the “majority of Australians”.
Tell me why is it wrong for them (by your account) to make assumptions about the “majority of Australians” but okay for you to make the same sort of sweeping generalisations and assumptions about “pro-boat people”??
Who is the hypocrite?

Pete from Sydney says:

08:17am | 22/06/11

Dave you’re already there…you sound a little hysterical yourself…leftards? nice

And Erick…usual party line from you

iansand says:

08:18am | 22/06/11

Could you explain why the “majority of Australians reject boat people”?

dovif says:

08:19am | 22/06/11

Agreed

The ALP and Greens only practice pretended compassion, they only care about the people, who reach our shores. so that they look like they are compassionate.

There are millions of refugees waiting in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, waiting for a country to accept them, the ALP and Greens has no compassion to those refugee, becuase Australians do not see them on their TV nightly

And since Australia have a yearly quota of refugee acceptance, every extra boat people, means a fewer refugee accepted from Indonesia/Malaysia etc

So all the ALP/Greens want to do is make a public “act” of compassion for some refugee (people who pay triads/illegal crime) to get them to Australia, while not worrying about the refugee Australians cannot see.

That is the real crime against refugees

Kevin says:

08:22am | 22/06/11

@Erick
The pro-boat people are “prejudiced, because they assume that most Australians are white, racist, ignorant, and stupid.”
@Dave
“Get ready for all the hysterical abuse from the bleeding heart leftards…”.

A nice illustration that prejudice cuts both ways in this debate.  Thank you Dave.

Tedd says:

08:41am | 22/06/11

“It’s the pro-boat-people set who are ignorant, prejudiced and racist.’

Such sweeping generalisations do not add to the debate, as is the charge “they only support boat people due to their skin colour”.

One of the saddest aspects of the current asylum seeker issue is that so many are from Afghanistan and Iraq b/c the Coaltion of the Willing mismanaged the aftermath of their entry to both countries a decade ago. 

They were patronising and superior and we are still paying the price.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

08:43am | 22/06/11

@ Kevin - Lets be realisitc for a second here. There has not been one single article on assylum seekers without pro-boat folks accusing the anti-boat folks of being racist redneck bogans.

Excluding those without readers comments, i challenge you to provide us with one article on boat people, that does not include a lefty accusing people of being racist redneck xenophobic bogans.

rb says:

08:46am | 22/06/11

@ Erick It’s not about the colour of their skin.
When war in Europe forced people to flee here there were some who did not want them. They were called wogs and had they cultural criticised. Even ‘whiter’ europeans from places like poland were treated as outsiders. But these needy people have enhanced our lives in Australia. So why can’t some one else who might not speak english either be treated any different. It is about need. And I think that maybe you have a problem with their skin since you raised the issue.

By the way I think that ‘some’ Australian are ‘ignorant, and stupid’ because of the way we sometimes treat each other.

Adam Diver says:

08:47am | 22/06/11

“Could you explain why the “majority of Australians reject boat people”?

Because they could fly here and claim asylum. The fact they choose not to at an inflated price sets off mine, and i can only assume the majorities BS meter.

JohnB says:

09:07am | 22/06/11

Great points dovif. That is the problem. There are too many global refugees (they’ll be increasing exponentially over the next few decades). Aust taking 12000 or whatever makes a minute fraction of difference to solving the problem. Our money would be far better spent assisting people overseas, while maintaining our already bloated population so we can afford aid. You’ll never get these clowns to even acknowledge this let alone act on it.

fml says:

09:20am | 22/06/11

Geoff - Brisbane,

Show me a comment “that does not include a lefty accusing people of being racist redneck xenophobic bogans.” that is not preceeded by, Im not Racist, But.

Gregg says:

09:22am | 22/06/11

@Ian,
Whether it is a majority or not the reasons for rejection will no doubt be a bit varied and there could well be many illinformed people who just want to accept that the boat people are illegals and that’s were it all becomes a bit grey as to claiming asylum being legal enough but people smuggling is considered something not to be encouraged if the illegal activity side of it is to be decided by the courts, apparently Indonesia now doing something on the legal front too.

Other reasons people may not accept the people smuggling arrivees too kindly is as dovif has partially portrayed though he needs to tune it up a bit for @ dovif,
” There are millions of refugees waiting in Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, waiting for a country to accept them, the ALP and Greens has no compassion to those refugee, becuase Australians do not see them on their TV nightly

And since Australia have a yearly quota of refugee acceptance, every extra boat people, means a fewer refugee accepted from Indonesia/Malaysia etc “

It is something like that, even if Malaysia’s latest count on those counted is about 100,000 but globally there are about 15M refugees.
You need to have a look at the DIAC site, http://www.immi.gov.au to get a fukll handle on how the humanitarian policy is split between refugees and others that include asylum seekers, the refugees that Australia selects from UNHCR centres a separate issue and not ostensibly affected though what the 800/4000 swap idea does is anyone’s guess.
A lot of humanitarian visa people may also come via the UNHCR but they need to be sponsored and it is those that may be displaced by the people smuggled numbers and so we may have people with money paying for an illegal service that ends up disrupting the accepted approach via UNHCR and costing us the taxpayers considerably more in attempting to manage the situation and then coping with all these additional people, possibly more likely to be unemployed for many years.

So, yes Ian, there is plenty of reasons to accept a more orderly system that will hopefully allow better assimilation.

Amy says:

09:28am | 22/06/11

I am not racist, or a “compassionate tosser” but I am pro boat people. So when you generalise a whole group of people saying ‘they’, you might want to use the word some instead.

Gregg says:

09:35am | 22/06/11

@Adam Diver,
Look mate, you are one who needs to re-tune your BS meter for you’ll probably find that if people had been able to get a visa and fly, they no doubt would have and then lodged an asylum claim on arrival.

Even visitor visas do not get handed out willy nilly to all countries and in fact there are only very few countries for which a passport holder can apply online and for the rest it is a case of putting in a paper application at the embassy/consulate/high commission and so Fred Nurk from abjbijaristan has to be able to find one of those and then a bloke called Kevin or Katja as a local employed might say
” Nurk!, what’s this lurk ” and they’ll certainly need to show a whole heap of reasons why a visa should be considered, like
. how much money do you have?
. where are you going to go?, what are you going for?
And immediately they do not say ” so I can claim asylum ” they are committing fraud
And then there’ll be ” and what about the family “
Why Australia?, very hot expensive place etc. etc.

So you get the drift?, a visa isn’t so easy at all to get and that’s where the people smuggling starts, just as it is for across other borders into what the customers will hope will be a better life!

Babs says:

09:35am | 22/06/11

Isn’t any view/opinion/perspective on any issue ipso facto ‘prejudiced’?  All these arguments one way or the other are presented as though the writer’s view (etc) is by default neutral.  Not so I’m afraid.

Quiche says:

09:41am | 22/06/11

You anger betrays guilt, which is because of your underlying rasicm. Even if you dont realise that. Dont really like aborigines either do ya ? Dole bludgers ? I could list all the things you dont like Erick like shootin fish in a barrel.

Kevin says:

10:04am | 22/06/11

@Geoff - Brisbane
“i challenge you to provide us with one article on boat people, that does not include a lefty accusing people of being racist redneck xenophobic bogans.”
Geoff, scroll up and just below the heading of the article you will see “filed under”.  Click on “asylum seekers” and you will be taken to the various articles posted on the Punch dealing with this issue.
The use of “lefty” as a pejorative term, like the use of “bogan”, detracts from any serious discussion of this issue.

Ando says:

10:14am | 22/06/11

Amy,
I dont see how anyone can be pro boat people. Are you also pro people smugglers.  Pro boat people that lie about there age, pro boat people that are refused refugee status and riot as a response. Are you pro 500,000 boat people or only pro a small number. Is there any point at which you consider practicalities and not just what sounds compassionate.

RyaN says:

10:23am | 22/06/11

@Dave: Marilyn Shepherd doesn’t get up this early mate, abuse will follow post midday when she rises.

John says:

10:29am | 22/06/11

Racism and Racist terms are not legitimate anyway, they were created by radical marxist Leon Trotsky to foment the class war.
It’s a false problem. It’s purpose is the empowerment of the party by making them embrace marxist ideals. Marxism preaches universalism Utopian idea’s, it doesn’t preach realist universal reality. Marxism ideals are false, the party knows it, but the party wants power, and use’s lies to remain and gain power.

Emily says:

11:00am | 22/06/11

This is just a shallow and unfounded attack on a fabricated group of ‘pro-boat-people’. I doubt anyone as educated as you suggest in your little tyrade could actually be accused of being ‘racist’ against white people and in favour of those with dark skin. All you are doing is projecting your own bigotted categorisation of people onto a deeply complex issue.

Furthermore, EVEN IF the caricature you have painted is accurate (which, as someone who works with well-educated ‘pro-boat’ people every day, I can assure is not), simply attacking a group for their faults does not mitigate the mistakes made by the ‘other side.’

It is unquestionable that Australia’s refugee and asylum seeker policies do not work. The intentions behind them become irrelevant in light of this fact. SOMETHING needs to change. I would suggest the first being ANY kind of category (white, black, ‘pro-boast’, ‘stop the boat’) and establishing that we are dealing with human beings.

Secondly, how about suggesting some solutions rather than defending your position. No one cares what you think if you can’t do anything about it. We need to process people more efficiently, comply with international human rights standards and treat asylum seekers as people.

This starts, in my mind, with removing the blatant bigotry, racial categorisation and attacks on ‘pro-boat’ or ‘ant-boat’ people. The only solution will come with public consensus.

Warren says:

11:04am | 22/06/11

@Erick you sound like Pauline Hanson with the “voice of the people” generalisations. Like Hanson you are doomed to irrelevancy. I think you know it too, hence the anger.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

11:07am | 22/06/11

@ Kevin - And every single article in there had someone accusing people of being racist bogans. I asked you to find one which doesn’t and you could not.

@fml - The main one you replyed to, which was written by Erick. Where did he say “i’m not a racist”

Chris L says:

11:27am | 22/06/11

“Get ready for all the hysterical abuse from the bleeding heart leftards…”

Damn those “bleeding heart leftards” and their insulting name-calling, eh Dave?

Lloyd says:

11:35am | 22/06/11

Do you ever sleep Erick?

Todd says:

11:43am | 22/06/11

Like people who want to save the whales. An animal not likely to be seen by anyone ever unless they go looking for it. And yet these same people shoo away birds and cats and any other creature that comes near them.

Luce says:

11:59am | 22/06/11

Imagine what we could achieve if all the effort spent debating (or rather, cat fighting) issues on the punch was put towards coming up with meaningful solutions to the problems we argue over… it’s very easy to be a bleeding heart for asylum seekers when you’re not charged with the responsibility of managing the situation. I don’t envy our politicians at all…

Fred says:

12:55pm | 22/06/11

@ Emily - absolutely brilliant contribution.  Just a shame most people will scroll past it because of all the other comments above it…

Kevin says:

12:57pm | 22/06/11

@Geoff
Are you including the readers’ comments?
The comments on the Punch from selected readers are hardly the basis for the sorts of broad generalisations made by Erick.  If they were, then the “pro-boat” people could be justified in assuming that “most Australians are white, racist, ignorant and stupid”.

iansand says:

01:00pm | 22/06/11

It seems that “the majority of Australians ” is the same as “everybody knows” - a means of identifying an individual’s particular prejudices.

AAAdam says:

01:18pm | 22/06/11

@ Gregg - I think Adam Diver has a well tuned BS meter. Your one might need a little adjusting though. You claim they can’t fly here because they can’t get a visa. How do you explain why 80% of them destroy their identity documentation on the boat ride to Australia then? This doesn’t seem like the act of an honest person with nothing to hide.

@ Erick - Well said.

Rocky says:

01:22pm | 22/06/11

Talk about delirious. Did you even watch the show Erick?

andy says:

01:37pm | 22/06/11

“They are ignorant, because they don’t understand any of the reasons why the majority of Australians reject boat people.” Congratulations on not mentioning any, and instead focusing on what is important - attacking the left.

underdog says:

02:23pm | 22/06/11

What continually amuses me about “Rightards” is that they don’t seem to understand the hypocrisies inherent in their political philosophies and how they relate to their own selective “logic” about matters such as refugees.

Rightards support the “free market” including the manufacture/trade/sale of weapons. This supply of weapons is exactly what enables violent despotic regimes to arm themselves to hold onto power and oppress the people who then flee as refugees.

How much of this weaponry has been manufactured by or invested in by a Western economy (including Australia)? Do some research on international arms sales to dictators and you will find that it is a LOT.

Of course, taking the “moral high ground” and stopping the sales/manufacture of weapons would just mean someone else would step in…that someone else being another “enterprising” free-market amoral “Rightard” who will sell the weapons to amoral “Rightard” dictators and the amoral “Rightard” armies who back them.

Hence the right wing political philosophy is actually at the core of the whole problem. But of course, the bleating idiots like Erick are incapable of self-analysis to that extent.

PS: On the subject of “enterprise”, I thought right-wing philosophy was based around rewarding self-interest and people who work hard/sacrifice to get ahead?
Seems somewhat contradictory to then argue that refugees who spend large amounts of their money to make a better life for themselves and their children are “immoral” then, doesn’t it? Please explain?

RB says:

03:06pm | 22/06/11

Absolutly spot on Eric.Well said.

Replete with Elite says:

03:10pm | 22/06/11

Erick, once again you prove your “lone dissenting voice” article to be a pile of steaming, self-serving hubris.

It’s almost as if it was written to portray you as a courageous outsider who fights the system no matter what the odds against him.

At least now you are admitting you are parroting the views of the majority. Can your admission to being racist and sexist be far behind?

At least you’ve stopped posting links to web sites that advocate blaming the victims of rape for their attacks. I guess your behavior *can* be modified when shown a firm hand.

Oh, and the “pro boat people” don’t get too worked up about claims of racism, only the “anti boat people” do. I wonder why that is ...

Replete with Elite says:

03:23pm | 22/06/11

Erick, do I take it that you endorse Raquel’s comments on the program, and don’t see her as ignorant, prejudiced, racist, or stupid?

You see in her a fellow traveler who is being hard done by?

From your argument she isn’t a racist at all. You are implying it is people like Raye who experienced an epiphany regarding her racism and bigotry towards asylum seekers that is the racist.

What a courageous man you are.

Incidentally, would you blame a woman who was married to a man like you leaving him and not wanting him to have access to his children? Or would his tortuous arguments re: asylum seekers convince her he was a compassionate and loving man who should influence the thoughts of his children?

Maybe ask that question on the pro-rape website you linked to that has had its URL thankfully banned from The Punch.

AAAdam says:

03:26pm | 22/06/11

@ underdog - If the free market was allowed to operate correctly then these people you claim are oppressed by arms would be able to purchase their own weapons to defend themselves from such despots/dictators. All you’ve really done is demonstrate how government interference in the free market (i.e. preventing the free market to supply weapons to everyone equally) can have disastorous consequences and allow despots/dictators to cling to power.

Erick says:

03:28pm | 22/06/11

The responses above demonstrate that what I stated in my first comment. It turns out that everyone who disagrees with me is indeed either ignorant, prejudiced, or racist, or all three.

Replete with Elite says:

03:55pm | 22/06/11

Erick, I’m happy for you to point out any errors in my posts.

You don’t seem to have a problem with doing that to other posters.

It couldn’t be that you’ve tried it before with me and were slapped down hard with the facts and made to look a fool, would it?

That would show a lack of courage on your part.

Keep riding that horse, Lone Ranger.

Bloggs says:

04:01pm | 22/06/11

@Greg,  Boat People fly to Jakata, and get off the plane with a valid passport.  They travel through Indonesia.  They use accommodation, food and transport for a long time often for many extended family groups.  They pay people smugglers.

They do this because they cannot get a visa, often because it was rejected.

What part of they are not always so poor when they get here do some of you guys not understand?

If they can afford to do all that then they are not the world’s poor sods as you paint them.

THis is why I do not support them.  Perhaps a few are legit, but only a few.  However they know you bleedin ghearts will give them everything.

Kepe them out, make them follow proper pathways and take out share in the proper manner.

We are not against refugees - just against rorts like this.

underdog says:

04:10pm | 22/06/11

@AAAdam,

If a free market was applied strictly, surely the population of Australia should simply compete with all immigrants including refugees.
I’m sure they’d work for much cheaper than you would.

The foundation of capitalism is the individual earning/spending money to further their own interests, so why are refugees excluded?
Surely people-smuggling is just pure free market capitalism at work? Yet you seem to want “Big Government” to intervene and stop it! Not very “free market” of you…

How about the concept of “enterprise” in a refugee attempting to make a better life in another country? Do you think people who move interstate for financial reasons are “queue jumpers” or are they enterprising and self reliant?
If someone is unable to make a life for themselves and their families, is it better that they just stay put and get tortured/beaten as long as it is out of our sight?

Sounds like you have a very insular and protectionist mindset for a right-wing free market supporter.

PS: Erick, could you respond to the above points too?

Gregg says:

04:18pm | 22/06/11

@ Emily & les agreeables
” It is unquestionable that Australia’s refugee and asylum seeker policies do not work. The intentions behind them become irrelevant in light of this fact. SOMETHING needs to change. I would suggest the first being ANY kind of category (white, black, ‘pro-boast’, ‘stop the boat’) and establishing that we are dealing with human beings. “

There’s no doubt Emily that 15M refugees globally and another ~ 27M IDPs [ people in trouble within their own countries ] are humans and collectively have some enormous problems, Australia unable to help with even a very small proportion but have you had a look at the Immi department humanitarian policy and numbers resettled here over a few decades - that not being the result of policies not working.

The rise of people smuggling again after an absence of a half dozen years is certainly straining our contries resources to handle the numbers - like you need people to check identities, claims, health etc. and then places to house people and what if we do not just have those places readily available/
In fact many Australians are living in far worse conditions than asylum seekers once they reach Australia.
As for solutions, if we cannot handle the numbers we need to do something to make people think twice about coming here and that is what the TPVs did, something revoked by Krudd.

” We need to process people more efficiently, comply with international human rights standards and treat asylum seekers as people. “
And then what do these people do here in Australia, once processed?

@ AAAdam,
” @ Gregg - I think Adam Diver has a well tuned BS meter. Your one might need a little adjusting though. You claim they can’t fly here because they can’t get a visa. How do you explain why 80% of them destroy their identity documentation on the boat ride to Australia then? This doesn’t seem like the act of an honest person with nothing to hide. “
Whether or not how many destroy identity documentation, possibly because that’s what the people smugglers tell them - please understand!
Having a passport does not mean you can get a visa for Australia!

Erick says:

04:30pm | 22/06/11

@underdog - Your points about capitalism, right or wrong, are completely unrelated to the boat people issue. There is simply no connection there at all, and therefore no need to comment.

Replete with Elite says:

04:42pm | 22/06/11

Erick, good boy.

When faced with an opponent of superior skill possessing greater firepower the best course of action is to retreat.

Better to be a coward than to lose face in battle.

Austin 3:16 says:

04:43pm | 22/06/11

Considering most asylum seekers arrive by air then I think describing the anti-boat types as ignorant is a pretty good description.

rb says:

06:00pm | 22/06/11

@ RB
This could get confusing.

Replete with Elite says:

07:07pm | 22/06/11

Erick hits a high point of rhetoric with a “I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I” post.

I think arguments along the lines of “Your-mum-is-so-fat-that ...” are sure to follow if he keeps getting strategy from the year 3 playground playbook.

bOB says:

08:11pm | 22/06/11

Please tell me the reasons why the majority of Australians reject boat people.

Jono says:

08:18pm | 22/06/11

Erik, I’m not sure what you do for a living as you seem to have a lot of time on your hands.  Maybe get a job and contribute to this society that you seem to be so proud of.  To your comment about pro-boat people being less compassionate if the people on the boats were white - are you joking?  Can you imagine if New Zealand was at war and boat loads of white New Zealanders arrived on our shores that we would have the same reaction.  We would not only let them in with open arms, we would probably provide them with housing, let them stay on welfare for a number of generations like a lot of white australian families.  How many boat people do you know that are on the dole? I have a real issue with australians thinking that just because they were born here that this country owes them a living!!  We should be letting in people who are desperate to survive and will do anything to create a life for themselves.  It would be more cost effective to round up all the people that have been on the dole for more than 2 years and ship them off to Christmas Island and let in all the boat people.  I would be amazed to see what this would do to our economy!!!  Bring in the hard workers and ship out the bludgers I say!!

bobby says:

08:40pm | 22/06/11

eric you couldent be more spot on if you tryed.

Steve Putnam says:

08:55pm | 22/06/11

@Eric you really fancy yourself don’t you mate(?) What in your view are the reasons “the majority of Australians reject boat people”?Do you think it originates, as Schneider seems to claim, in a desire to stop people smuggling at all costs? Is it because you and a “majority of Australians” consider them queue jumpers? Do you think terrorist organisations are using this as method of introducing “sleeper” operatives into the country ready to strike at a given signal?  Don’t you realise your case lacks any meaning without stating this most basic premise? Elsewhere you are quite happy to sally forth with a whole lot of opinions about the “pro-boat-people set” which you baldly state as fact, but are strangely silent on this most fundamental of questions.
Perhaps you don’t know why you and a “majority of Australians reject boat people”? If that’s the case I offer the following: I think all the above issues play a part with (yes) a bit of xenophobia thrown in. However based on conversations with people opposed to boat arrivals, I think that some Australians- not necessarily a majority-  feel that Australia is carrying too much of the burden of the world’s displaced persons.
When you do the maths and figure out that less than one twentieth of one percent of refugees world wide come to these shores by boat, this argument doesn’t remotely hold water.
What is even sadder is that both major political parties seem hell bent on reaching out to this ignorant, self- satisfied lowest common denominator.

Gregg says:

09:59pm | 22/06/11

@Bloggs
” @Greg,  Boat People fly to Jakata, and get off the plane with a valid passport.  They travel through Indonesia.  They use accommodation, food and transport for a long time often for many extended family groups.  They pay people smugglers.

They do this because they cannot get a visa, often because it was rejected.

What part of they are not always so poor when they get here do some of you guys not understand?

If they can afford to do all that then they are not the world’s poor sods as you paint them.

THis is why I do not support them.  Perhaps a few are legit, but only a few.  However they know you bleedin ghearts will give them everything.

Kepe them out, make them follow proper pathways and take out share in the proper manner.

We are not against refugees - just against rorts like this. “
If your @Greg is intended for me with the gg, no other greg having posted then all I can say is your post could be very trypical of how rational discussion on The Punch is very difficult for you have not even read my post accurately and I certainly do not paint the asylum seekers as the worlds poorest sods but I at least have a mind open enough to understand why some people could try and scrape enough money together to attempt getting a better life whether we agree with their motives and method or not.

Now if ypou go back and read properly, you’ll see re the visas issue how I was merely answering a query with exactly what you got arround to saying and that is not everyone can get a visa!
You may even gather that as far as law and order and deciding who can come to australia I am even further up the track than John, Tony or Scott for as much as we can empathise with the predicament of many peoples on the planet, it is beyond Australia’s means to look after too many more than we already are doing.

Gregg says:

10:42pm | 22/06/11

@StevePutman
Are you asn accountant Steve for accountants love to play with figures too, but re:
” Erick is known for his views on many subjects and whether he fancies himself or not or what Schneider may think are both irrelevant to your most fundamental of questions because there may be many different views on how Australians see the boat people, people snuggling or whatever you may want to call it.
My reasoning is to look at the basic facts, figures included and they are:
. Yep, there are so many refugees globally and resettling is very minimal, Australia actually being right up there with numbers, probably even tops per capita if you want to believe UNHCR figures.
The numbers are vastly different re asylum seekers crossing borders and South Africa leads the way there but whether they are allowed to stay or how they are treated may be other matters.
. Australia’s humanitarian programme is split between refugees fully supported by government/taxpayer funding and special humanitarian visas available for sponsoring with sponsor funding.
It is the latter number that goes down as asylum seeker approvals go up, so yes, asylum seekers displace other people who would otherwise have had the opportunity to be sponsored - check out the reports via http://www.immi.gov.au re the numbers.
. The asylum seekers are also being fully funded by the government/taxpayer and there are many examples of what the government spending is, not to mention dangers to Australians of rescues/transfers at sea and even contagious diseases not unknown of though fortunately to date not too prevalent.
Now you quote that tiniest of percentages and whatever it is, it is irrelevant for the above reasons and that an orderly control of our humanitarian visas is needed just as it is for general immigration so that tiniest of percentages does not grow and if you look at the percentage boat arrivals has been in past couple of years of our total humanitarian intake, you can see it is a significantly higher percentage.

You may like some people be happy to raise our total humanitarian effort and I hope you would have a plan in mind as to how with doing that you would seek to not be encouraging even more asylum seekers and have the knowhow as to how they can all be adequately cared for and at whatever cost.
A report was issued recently that after five years, a huge percentage of refugees remained on welfare, probably not even reflected in our unemployment numbers.

And then by encouraging asylum seekers to use the people smuggling process, you leave open the potential for many more deaths at sea.
So the sooner, some sanity can be restored to this country and we get rid of this useless government we have, the better off a lot of people will be.

acotrel says:

08:46am | 23/06/11

How long will it be before we get to this again?:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WVyqht71Ns&feature=related

Aaron says:

09:17am | 23/06/11

Erick, if I was to be honest there are two issues here. One the Liberals propose the “Stop the Boats” while Labor and the Greens propose “Help them if they make it”. My thoughts on a successful policy would be: Stop the boats by heading into the countries where refugees are coming from and processing them there and then providing transport. Illegal immigration would decrease to those that overstay visas or enter as Plane People

Aaron says:

09:30am | 23/06/11

@ the people claiming that the refugees destroy their identification: You have proof that it is these people who destroy it? You have been on those boats have you? That would suggest you have obtained the services of the people smugglers for travel.

My point here is that unless you have been on those boats you have no idea who destroys what, in fact it has been claimed many a time by the refugees that the “captains” store the documentation in a safe and then throw it overboard if they are going to be stopped, otherwise chances are that the documentation is used for identity theft.

The real money is in the identification, which is why people smugglers don’t care about whether the refugees make it or not.

AAAdam says:

09:49am | 23/06/11

@ Gregg - I believe they don’t get given visas because the government knows they are full of it too. Though, accepting your argument that they can’t fly because they cannot get a visa, you’ve yet to explain why 80% of them destroy their identity documentation when they reach Australia waters? To me, this seems dishonest and the act of people trying to hide something. You suggest the people smugglers tell them to do it; even accepting this dubious argument, please explain why the people smugglers would want them to do such a thing? I suspect you know exactly why but are avoiding the question….

Personally, I think it so they can flout Australian law and take advantage of a refugee acceptance process that gives them the benefit of the doubt if they have no ID documents, thus allowing them to exploit easy welfare in Australia and ultimately, allowing their whole family to do the same once they apply for reunion. It also makes it impossible for us to positively establish their identity, country of origin or review the multiple safe countries they flew through before taking a boatride to Australia. Happy to hear your reason why if you have a feasible and logical alternate explanation as to why they destroy their ID documents as soon as they hit Australian waters (or why people smugglers would tell them to do so)?

@ Underdog - Lol. I noticed you didn’t even attempt to defend your previous argument. Probably because I kicked it to kurb with the rest of the trash so easily. You next post was a strawman argument at best. However, just as pushing over a strawman is a less than impressive feat, trying to refute arguments I haven’t made is also less than impressive. Perhaps underdog is suitable name for someone such as yourself.

That being said, I’ll kick your second argument to the kurb too. Yes, the free market would allow labor to move between nation states without hinderence. I’d be all for it! A true free market would also mean refugees, or any cheap labor for that matter, who arrived here would receive nothing for free (i.e. no welfare, no free healthcare, no free housing, no free security, no bludging off others what-so-ever). This is because everything would be user pays under a true free market system, not semi-socialist as it is now. However, I suspect under a true free market refugees wouldn’t pay tens of thousands to a people smuggler to come to a Australia where unskilled labor would be abundant and welfare, free housing, free security and free healthcare was non-existant.

The only thing that prevents labor (unskilled or otherwise) moving between countries is government interference in the free market. The other thing that prevents us opening the floodgates to refugees is that society cannot bear the cost of huge numbers of bludging refugees because of other free market distortions such as welfare, medicare, government housing, etc. Without these free market distortions caused by government, society would not be burdened with their costs and as many as wanted could come here without creating a burden on others. So yet again, you can see how government interference in the free market makes it reach a less than optimal outcome.

Sadly, you appear to have absolutely no knowledge of free market economics so your attempts to rubbish it only make you look ill informed or lacking education of the subject. I’m not going to waste anymore of my time responding to you until you go an inform yourself a bit better (though I doubt you’ll do that because it would destroy some on your ill-conceived marxist views of the world). However, might I suggest reading the book “Principles of Economics” by Gans et al. It covers the basics of economic theory and the free market. Or better yet, enrol yourself in economics at uni. It will certainly serve you better than trying to blame the free market for what are actually problems caused by the free market being manipulated.

Bruno says:

10:36am | 23/06/11

Adolf started out with intellectual pieces like that. Well done Erick.

John T says:

12:43pm | 23/06/11

They had him participatre robably because they wanted a balanced perspective - who is the tosser now?  Blimey Erick, you are as predictable as a shortage of dunny paper at the footy.

Matthew says:

01:03pm | 23/06/11

Erick is right, but is no different to the “pro-boat-people”.

As there are no white asylum seekers (Why is that anyway?  Because whites are rich?  Because countries with a majority of white citizens don’t mistreat their citizens?  Because white people were not really in tribes the same ways that Africans and Afghans are?  Who knows…) then I guess we’ll never know but I suspect that there would be a significantly different tone.

I’m anti-boat-people to the core but often think to myself that these people are (usually) in fact victims and what should we do to help them?  Let them in and over populate our countries the same way theirs are so we have problems as well?  That isn’t the solution, it’s just creating a problem for us (not yet but one day).  World over-population is the cause of every problem in the world environmentally, socially and politically.

Unfortunately I don’t know the solution but bringing them here isn’t it and I’d rather see the money spent on other programs that truly help these poor suffering citizens of the world that technology has brought about.

Matt says:

04:54pm | 23/06/11

Very well said Emily.

Erick says:

06:38am | 22/06/11

See my post above.

Plain Jane says:

07:08am | 22/06/11

There is no queue?  What about 800/4000 Labor/Malaysia swap policy? -  the 4000 come from the legal queue according to Bowen/Gillard

Ben in Canberra says:

07:53am | 22/06/11

I can do that for you Justin; with your regard Erick.

The first episode of the SBS series last night was fairly compelling viewing, but mainly for the stories of people who have risked their lives through various means to find a better life for themselves and their families. The tried and true matrix of reality TV was boldly evident with the alpha male, the bogan, the swinging opinionista, the leftie and the other two cast members playing their part. Secretly, I hope that Raquel (the bogan), has some kind of epihany and by the end of the program changes her attitude towards other cultures, however, I suspect that for the integrity of the program this might not occur; at least on camera.

Your premise suggests that to abhor the trade of people smuggling and introduce punitive measures such as we currently do, albeit poorly, and previously did under the Howard government, arguably successfully, is to punish innocent people? If you had really thought through the argument, you would realise that these people seeking asylum are already punished by people smugglers and the ineffectual UNHCR system. By stopping the trade of people smugglers by deterrence, we are in fact attempting to limit the punishment of these people by stopping the prohibitive cost and hopefully avoiding the dangerous journey.

We as a global citizen have the responsibility to assist in our region where we can, and arguably our refugee intake could increase probably two-fold without a great deal of stress (provided the largely incompetent DIAC could be whipped into gear). To argue against assisting genuine refugees should be anathema to Australians with a conscious; to blithely accept that every person who attempts to come to our shores is a genuine refugee is a fools pursuit.

dovif says:

07:53am | 22/06/11

Justin said

“they are well within their legal right to arrive on our shores by any means possible and claim asylum, that’s how the UN convention works. “

that is completely incorrect, they are suppose to seek asylum at the first safe country they go to. Most AS who comes to Australia had been to at least 3 counrties that satisfied that criteria, prior to reaching Australia

Gregg says:

08:08am | 22/06/11

@Justin,
Roderick has indicated the reasons why he is against the people smuggling asylum seeking process,
”  There are UN camps on the way, what is so bad at these camps? Surely if they’re set up by the UN, people should be able to stay there and not feel threatened.” being one question he puts ans also stressing that we should do whatever we can to discourage people putting to sea after having paid sunstantial funds to people who do not really care for their welfare.
” There is no queue, that is an over simplification ” and yes, that was an over simplified claim of Labor’s previous Immigration Minister Chris Evans who decided he could no longer handle the job, having wanted to have been a back seat driver anyway.
Interstingly, it is now claimed the queue is there and 100,000 in Malaysia alone, another 15M globally and more people each year apply for resettlement than resettling countries have capacity to resettle, so if that is no queue, what is?
And yes, whilst we remain signed to a convention that allows it, asylum seekers have a legal right to seek asylum as do many who arrive by air, having been able to get a visa and many of those have their applications rejected.
The ones coming by boat often have no papers for various reasons and what is illegal is the people smuggling.

When you say we are punishing asylum seekers, are you suggesting we should not detain people who have arrived through an illegal means and with no identification and some sort of a story that needs to be checked out?.
How will we be able to verify the stories of desperation that those using people smugglers may spin, and if you wish to talk desperation, compare the lot of the Iraqi guys with the Burundi family experience, nine years in that queue and you might grasp some idea.

Losite says:

08:24am | 22/06/11

“punishing asylum seekers to deter people smugglers is akin to punishing parents who’s adult children have gone off the rails and committed crimes.”

I disagree.

It’s more like punishing drug users so that other drug users will not by drugs from dealers. Or punishing people who purchase cigarettes of questionable origin, so that others will not be encouraged to make these purchases. The point is by punishing those who have rewarded those who break the rules, others will be less likely to reward those who break the rules.

*I hasten to add that we should punish those who participate in scams, yes, the self proclaimed “victims”. A person who pays money with the intent of assisting someone to smuggle money out of another country should be indicted for their attempted participation in that smuggling action (whether or not the smuggling actually happens). See how quickly the Nigerian money scam dies off if the law reflected the reality of the (so called) victim’s behaviour.

Punishing people who arrive having employed the use of people smugglers, as opposed to those who make their own way, makes it clear that it is not the act of arriving in Australia that is the problem. It is the method of getting here.

Gregg says:

08:48am | 22/06/11

@ Ben,
You’ve got to realise that Raquel is just 21 and bogan or not, any pretty young thing walking down their main town street amidst many young dark skinned African men lounging about might give you a particular mind set.
Now horsey Faye is it, needs a real hoof in the teeth with her statement about ” they got what they deserved ” re the Xmas Is boat crash [ and we do forget easily of the many more that have perished at sea ] , Fayes angst merely brought on by the Adelaide Hills neighbours and I wonder with both why people so shallow would have been included on this show, but then that’s reality TV.
And for more on reality
” these people seeking asylum are already punished by people smugglers and the ineffectual UNHCR system. By stopping the trade of people smugglers by deterrence, we are in fact attempting to limit the punishment of these people by stopping the prohibitive cost and hopefully avoiding the dangerous journey. “
They choose to bypass the UNHCR system and then squeal where’s the UNHCR when they finally end up in detention.
Why do they not go to a UNHCR centre and the likely reason is they would say something like ” and live in a tent for years! ” and well that’s life too and that ineffectual UNHCR system you refer to can only do what its budget and member countries can allow.

” We as a global citizen have the responsibility to assist in our region where we can, and arguably our refugee intake could increase probably two-fold without a great deal of stress (provided the largely incompetent DIAC could be whipped into gear) “.
And so what is your basis for claiming DIAC is incompetent when their role is borders management and not the resettling by government departnments, but more so, just where do double the number of refugees get housed and who pays for their housing, food, education, medical expenses etc. and what impact do you think that will have on many Australians already severely struggling and if you do not think there are not any, maybe you need to get out of Canberra yourself and have a look at how people who have been through floods and cyclones etc. are surviving.

fml says:

09:49am | 22/06/11

Dovif,

“that is completely incorrect, they are suppose to seek asylum at the first safe country they go to. Most AS who comes to Australia had been to at least 3 counrties that satisfied that criteria, prior to reaching Australia”

There are over 4 million refugees in Iran and Pakistan, Seems like the majority do. Its only a small number that continue on.

Bev says:

10:00am | 22/06/11

Gregg says:08:48am | 22/06/11
just where do double the number of refugees get housed and who pays for their housing, food, education, medical expenses etc. and what impact do you think that will have on many Australians already severely struggling
If I want to donate money to help people overseas I can pay out money I have earned. A large number of refugees, once they get accepted channel money overseas.  Again if their working their choice. It seems that people on the dole are doing the same thing.  This not their money it is taxpayers money.  No doubt some of it is going into the kitty to pay people smugglers to bring their relatives here. And the amount is not small $6 billion dollars a year leaves australia.

SOME refugees in Australia are sending welfare payments abroad as part of a multi-billion-dollar industry to help relatives in poor countries. Using World Bank data, the report estimated that up to $6 billion flows out of Australia each year in payments to people overseas. It said that a survey of humanitarian arrivals showed that 70 per cent had sent money home. For Africans, it was not unusual to send up to 20 per cent of their weekly incomes to families. The average amount was $200 a month and each refugee was supporting about five people back home. Prof Hugo’s report said that a study of Somalian and Ethiopian refugees in Melbourne and Adelaide had revealed the overwhelming majority sent money home, despite almost one in five being on the dole.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/some-refugees-in-australia-sending-welfare-payments-abroad/story-e6frf7jo-1226079532616

Budz says:

10:04am | 22/06/11

dovif"that is completely incorrect, they are suppose to seek asylum at the first safe country they go to. Most AS who comes to Australia had been to at least 3 counrties that satisfied that criteria, prior to reaching Australia “

But as the part of the article says below, these people might be leaving countries where asylum seekers get treated worse than criminals. Can you blame them for leaving?

“Just to the north of Australia, there are countries like Indonesia and Malaysia who are not signatories to the UNHCR conventions, and do not acknowledge asylum seekers but rather imprison them and whip them. Further north in Burma, the population has been embroiled in internal conflict for almost a generation with the military regime killing all in its wake.”

dovif says:

07:58am | 22/06/11

Old Dog,

Except the trick worked, it is in government released document (by the Gillard government)

Before the Pacific solution, there were 5,000 AS a year, when worldwide AS was $12mill, the worldwide AS droped to $10 mil in the first year of Pacific solution, but there was less then 100 AS a year who reach Australia in the next 2 years. Dispite worldwide asylum seekers increasing to $22 mil in 2006, Australian/Nauru arrival was still less then 300.

It was only when Gillard decided to change the law that AS start flooding in again, dispite a negligiible increase in AS in year 2008 and 2009, AS who reached Australian increased to 6500 a year

Triads and Crime gangs in Indonesian are making money on Gillard’s incompetence

Gregg says:

08:22am | 22/06/11

@Old Dog
” A tough stance on *asylum-seekers* doesn’t make you a racist, but nor does it make for an effective solution. If the Liberal Party were serious about having a meaningful impact on the world’s refugee population, they would pursue the reform of (or even withdrawing outright from) the deeply flawed Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. “
Well I do believe you can teach an old dog new tricks and first you should realise that there has been significant confusion caused by talking of asylum seekers and refugees in the same context.
Yes, we do have a humanitarian policy that takes in refugees and also allows for people to seek asylum, and not much we can do about the global numbers, Australia’s capacity to absorb more than we take and even those we take now somewhat questionable.

How you think a withdrawal from the UN convention on refugees could have a meaningful impact on their numbers I’ll leave you to attempt to explain and then as for Christmas Island Vs Nauru, it was never a case of Christmas Island Vs Nauru for Christmas Island did not exist as it does now when Nauru was used and it is possible that the policy of the Labor government adopted since 2008 has seen the numbers in detention explode to not just overwhelm Christmas Island but seeing many locations on the ASustralian ,mainland being used by the government as detention centres at great cost to the Australian taxpayer.
It may have been the use of TPVs that saw the asylum seeker numbers drop off to bugger all in the period 2002 - 2007 and that seems to be too readily forgotten.

Willie Mac says:

08:54am | 22/06/11

@dovif

Yeah, it’s all that nasty Gillard’s fault for more asylum seekers reaching Australia in 2008-09 as compared to 2006. It’s absolutely nothing to do with the GFC causing large-scale poverty and in some cases, starvation, in third-world countries.

marley says:

09:40am | 22/06/11

@WillieMac - while I don’t agree with either major party on asylum issues, neither can I agree with your statement.  The GFC has nothing to do with refugee issues, since flight from poverty is not a grounds for being considered a refugee.  And in any case, the number of asylum seekers globally has gone down, not up, over the last three years.

Peter says:

09:44am | 22/06/11

Willie Mac, poverty is not a genuine reason for claiming asylum.

The Refugees Convention defines a refugee as a person who:

is outside their country of nationality or their usual country of residence
is unable or unwilling to return or to seek the protection of that country due to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion
is not a war criminal and has not committed any serious non-political crimes or acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.
The Refugees Convention does not oblige signatory countries to provide protection to people who do not fear persecution and have left their country of nationality or residence on the basis of war, famine, environmental collapse or in order to seek economic opportunities.

Source: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/61asylum.htm

dovif says:

10:13am | 22/06/11

Willie Mac

According to UNHCR there was very little change in refugees between 2007 and 2009

The increase in AS reaching Australia was clearly associated with the change in policies penned by Gillard

Old Dog says:

05:05pm | 22/06/11

@ dovif: Lies, damned lies, and statistics, mate. If you’re saying that there’s a correlation between falling asylum seeker numbers and government policy, then you have to be able to say what it was about the government’s policy that worked to deter asylum seekers. You haven’t done that, you’ve just quoted some statistics. By your logic, it could be argued that Bob Hawke’s asylum seeker policy was best because Australia received zero boats between ‘82 and ‘88. Or hadn’t they invented asylum seekers by the 1980s?

@Gregg: Have you read the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees? Are you aware that it encourages clandestine border crossing, is totally subjective, and makes no provision for internally displaced persons, victims of gender crimes, or people fleeing irreversible environmental catastrophe? Withdrawing from the convention would allow us to deal with asylum claims on our own terms, and without regard to unnecessarily subjective political criteria that were developed in order to embarrass the Soviet Union. Wouldn’t it make more sense to accept that it is virtually impossible to prove that any given individual is not a “genuine refugee”, and instead assess claims based on who might best adapt to life in Australia? (There’s no point in helping those who are going to struggle to adapt to life in Australia if we can help those who can start supporting themselves earlier)

I concede that withdrawing from the convention would not stop the boats. But frankly, I can’t see any evidence that any government policy will. TPVs were introduced in 1999, and in the following years we experienced record levels of asylum seekers. Now you can cotton on to dovif’s cum hoc ergo propter hoc argument if you like, but forgive me if I retain at least a bit of skepticism about the supposed effectiveness of a unproven policy that was horrendously expensive, and that resulted in virtually no change in the acceptance rate of refugee applications.

Gregg says:

10:10pm | 22/06/11

@Old Dog,
I suppose it needs to be said that some old dogs and not all can learn some new tricks and even if the ones that are blind can adapt, the new tricks will come a bit harder.
There you go again confusing yourself on those seeking asylum and refugees.
Any new policy that is a negative one will always have the lag time for the effect desired, hence it was a couple of years that TPVs took to take effect but make a positive move like revoking them and didn’t the flow accelerate after being dormant for about six years.
Meanwhile, yes we were meeting refugee targets and rightly so.

MK says:

04:52pm | 25/06/11

@ Greg,
year Before Howard came in 100 boat arrivals,
first year of Howard 1700 boat arrivals.

TPV’s “succeeded” in changeing boat arrival demographic from 99% men, to include many women and children as well.
Pacific solution was merely a play on semantics
SIEV boats didn not land/arrive in Australia
Had nothing to do with the number of boats that set sail for australia
or that the vast majority ended up in Aus/NZ in the long run anyway,

Tom says:

08:52am | 22/06/11

CJ, “the trouble is that the most vociferous opponents of asylum seekers can’t manage it”. So what? Your sanctimonious statement tells me you find it impossible to debate the issue without reverting to ad hominems.

Australians don’t have to “demonstrate” anything. The presumption is innocence (unless you were thinking witch hunts). This is not a “compassion Olympics” with some independent judges somewhere out there (such as you?).

Your 1% argument is just a wank. “Refugees are (by your definitions) desperate. Therefore Australians have to put up with illegal actions and have no say in the matter.” No, CJ, they are rich enough to afford to get to Indonesia and shop for destinations, but your type ignores that inconvenient truth.

marley says:

09:47am | 22/06/11

@Tom - out of curiosity, what makes you think a genuine refugee must be poor?  Lots of Jews who managed to get out of 1930s Germany did so with money;  that didn’t make them any less refugees from Hitler.  Quite a few of the Asians who had to flee Idi Amin’s Uganda in the 1970s took little bars of gold with them;  that didn’t make them any less genuinely in fear of persecution.  And a lot of the (white)Zimbabweans trying to get refugee status in Australia now had the money to fly here - but that doesn’t mean they aren’t refugees, does it?

Rutger says:

10:01am | 22/06/11

Well put CJ
Schneider does indeed appear to be conflicted by his experience and he does face an impossible task.
The dog whistling behaviour of the opposition calls the racist beast within up to the surface and the message is clear for all who want to hear it. It matters not that they try to paint a compassionate face on it, it is the clown face of the conservative congregation.

This is all done in the name of scoring political points. Schneider is an ambitious liberal party member who is willing to sacrifice some of his humanity for political gain and a place at the liberal table.

fml says:

12:48pm | 22/06/11

Why are young people joining up political parties anyways?

They should be out chasing girls in the pub like everyone else.

Reggie says:

03:35pm | 22/06/11

Tom; “No, CJ, they are rich enough to afford to get to Indonesia and shop for destinations, but your type ignores that inconvenient truth.”

All refugees are desperate whether they are poor or not, and it’s a convenient presumption to assume one or the other. Desperation of which the “average” Ustrayn, would know very little.

With the greatest confidence of sidestepping any irrelevant Godwin reference, it was the Nazis who made the Allies look mean and stupid when they allowed a ship-load of Jewish refugees to sail from Hamburg to the West only to have landing right refused, where-upon they were returned to Hamburg and then to the extermination camps.  I am sure even Erick can grasp the dreadful connection.

By the way, I am finding it highly amusing that the right-wingers in this forum are busy trying to paint the LEFT as name callers and racists. It must be some deep-seat fear that they have revealed their hand, eh Neil?  Remember the conservative maxim now, knowledge is power and keep your mouth shut, lest you reveal yourselves.

Tom says:

06:42pm | 22/06/11

CJ & Reggie, So, Please answer a simple question without smart-arse sophistry. Are you advocating that Australians (“average” Ustrayn titter titter, ... how wonderfully witty) must keep on paying and opening their country up until every desperate person on the planet is no longer desperate?

If your answer is “Yes”, I am calling your bull-shit. However, if your answer is “No”, tell us when Australians will be able to draw the line without your pontificating drivel.

What is it? “Yes” or “No”? I bet your type could not give a straight answer. The sanctimonious left never do.

Tom says:

07:31pm | 22/06/11

Reggie, desperate eh? But Reggie, they escaping Indonesia? Who was persecuting them there? Try not to be so condescending. It makes me think you are covering up for the lack of substance in your arguments.

rob says:

08:20am | 22/06/11

Arr Carz, you are exactly what is wrong with this country, go and have a latte with one of the Doctors wives.

M61A1 says:

12:54pm | 22/06/11

I’m thinking that I should come and stay at your place, I expect you to treat me well, despite that I could have gone elsewhere, and that I broke your back door to get in. I will demand that you feed, clothe and house me, if you don’t give me spending money, I will cry racism. I certainly will not be following any of your household rules because they are not how I did things before, and if you do things I don’t like, I will burn your stuff.
That alright with you?

Gav says:

12:54pm | 22/06/11

There is no question that there are genuine refugees who are in real danger - are they getting here in boats - yes and no. My question though is how many? How many do we agree to take? a statistic from the CEO Sleepout last week was that around 100,000 people in Australia are homeless - shouldn’t they be our first priority?  As for the horrors in Africa and Burma - where is the UN? Why aren’t they stopping it, isn’t that why they exist?

All questions and no answers that we can all agree with.

Carz says:

01:11pm | 22/06/11

sorry rob, I don’t drink coffee or know any doctors’ wives.

Carz says:

02:09pm | 22/06/11

M61A1 says:

      12:54pm | 22/06/11

      I’m thinking that I should come and stay at your place, I expect you to treat me well, despite that I could have gone elsewhere, and that I broke your back door to get in. I will demand that you feed, clothe and house me, if you don’t give me spending money, I will cry racism. I certainly will not be following any of your household rules because they are not how I did things before, and if you do things I don’t like, I will burn your stuff.
      That alright with you?

That’s fine with me, provided I can keep you locked up behind razor wire and hold the threat of throwing you out constantly over your head, regardless of how much begging and pleading you do or how real your need is. Oh, and provided you have given all your money to the taxi driver who delivered you to my door and had all personal documentation destroyed by the person who arranged the taxi for you.

M22 says:

05:41pm | 22/06/11

But Carz, my cousin who came before me and knows the rules of this house told me that this is a good shortcut to get what I want. I was well aware of the rules BEFORE breaking down your back door and demanding that you bend over backwards for me or even trying to hail a taxi. You are so weak that you deserve to be taken advantage of.

I would say thank you, but you were off working to pay for me as is my right.

Roderick Schneider says:

02:01pm | 30/06/11

Thanks for your comment Carz. I’m trying not to scream or carry on, just suggesting that we need to look at the issue more broadly, and be more willing to understand the opinions of others, and why they might arrive at those opinions.

Margaret Gray says:

08:48am | 22/06/11

150,000 Australian CITIZENS are without a roof over their head and food in their bellies on any given night.

Maybe we should start showing some compassion toward our own countrymen and women before spending so much money and effort on the world’s flotsam.

Our priority should be to remove the homelessness within our own community BEFORE we take on the problems of the world.

Seems pretty simple.

TChong says:

08:53am | 22/06/11

agree ian
peoples lives / well being used as up- manship is sad and in the realms of sociopaths.

fml says:

09:41am | 22/06/11

Margaret,

Do you really think that if we abandon our refugee policy either of our governments are going to spend money on the homeless?

Why cant we do both? we seem to be coping alright at the moment.

Ash says:

09:44am | 22/06/11

This ^^

iansand says:

09:47am | 22/06/11

And Margaret Gray swings by with an attempt to politicise a different kind of human misery.  Oh well.

Leopard says:

09:51am | 22/06/11

Not ashamed

Instead of calling shame!  state what you’re doing, besides talk, for this “human misery”.

LeonT says:

10:01am | 22/06/11

@Margaret Gray

Helping people overseas and helping people here are not mutually exclusive. Why can’t we do both? We’re certainly rich enough to.

Mel says:

10:23am | 22/06/11

Yes Margaret Gray, we should ignore all global issues until Australia is 100% fixed up.

It is impossible to care about two issues (or more!) at once.

Tchom says:

10:28am | 22/06/11

@Margaret Gray

Yeah Marge (can I call you Marge), we shouldn’t give a CRAP about people arriving on our shores! If they were truly grateful to get to our country, they’d wait politely on the beach until everyone in Australia had a house 2.5 kids and an office job. Serves them right for being born in the wrong country

Margaret Gray says:

10:43am | 22/06/11

@iansand
“...And Margaret Gray swings by with an attempt to politicise a different kind of human misery.,,”

Don’t be so disingenuous.  It is a political issue. 

It’s too convenient that a so-called secular society can just let the issue of homelessness be dealt with by church groups, charities and faith-based organisations without government intervention.

How many of those wretched souls currently living on the streets around Australia could benefit from the $2500 phone cards - or the equivalent in cash or food or rent assistance) being handed out to asylum seekers by the Federal Government?

How sad and pathetic that you consider refugees being more worthy of concern and assistance and than your own people.

@LeonT
“...Why can’t we do both?...”

We can…but we’re don’t. 

The disproportionate amount of energy and angst given to this issue is wrong.

It’s about priorities.  And our own people should come first.

I have heard bupkis about the homeless, yet everyday for YEARS the issue of asylum seekers and refugees is writ large in the media and on on the floor of parliament.

I keep getting told our refugee ‘problem’ is so small as to be trivial. 

Well the homelessness of our own people is not.

Margaret Gray says:

10:52am | 22/06/11

“...It is impossible to care about two issues (or more!) at once…”

What a stupid statement.

I care MORE about my family’s welfare than yours and will always put their needs before anyone else’s.

That doesn’t make me inhuman.

No 1 Rosie says:

11:00am | 22/06/11

Margaret Gray

We are told by humanitarian advocates that it is our moral obligation to send aid to undeveloped countries for the poor, mainly to keep the children at school. Mind you it is to keep the children at school - however we cannot be certain whether these children end up with a good education that enables them to get a job later.

If Australia is sending aid abroad why not help human beings arriving on our shores seeking asylum. How our Govt deals with it, should be what we should be debating without all this crap of racism etc etc If this Govt believes the Malaysian solution is the right way to go, so be it! Decent compassionate Australians should look at the Malaysian solution the way it is and debate it on its merits. I am disgusted with the idea of sending human beings to Malaysia to live in hovel squalid conditions! I wouldn’t have minded if the conditions in Malaysia were up to Australian standards. This will never happen because it will cause more trouble in Malaysia to see asylum seekers living in better conditions than their own people.

fml says:

01:08pm | 22/06/11

Keeping your cultural identity is a personal battle. Defining yourself as Australian based on anything physical is a futile attempt at reconciling the internal conflict you face, which you perceive as your cultural identity slipping away.

Increased immigration plays no part, or atleast shouldnt play apart in how you define yourself. Increased immigration is not going to stop you from going to the footy, the pub, the beach or which ever physical activity that you deem necessary to define your self as Australian.

Once you realise that your cultural identity is a state of mind, No one will be able to take it away from you.

Michael says:

01:17pm | 22/06/11

Loving your thoughts fml.

Jay Santos says:

01:42pm | 22/06/11

“...Once you realise that your cultural identity is a state of mind, No one will be able to take it away from you…”

So why does it require legislation to protect it?

“...Increased immigration is not going to stop you from going to the footy, the pub, the beach or which ever physical activity that you deem necessary to define your self as Australian…”

So explain to me why I can no longer order ham sandwiches for council functions in the City of Hume but I can in the City of Glen Eira?

fml says:

02:09pm | 22/06/11

Jay,

You think that ham sandwiches epitomises Australian culture?
Can you not make your own?

“So why does it require legislation to protect it?” What legislation? to protect your right to go to the pub, beach or have a bbq? i didnt know any such existed.

Plain Jane says:

02:10pm | 22/06/11

fml: immigrants don’t give up their cultural identity of their original homelands but Australia is only too willing to give up its own culture and change laws in its own country to accomodate immigrants over locals. Immigrants don’t cut their connections with original homeland even after decades of living in Australia, they perpetuate , customs and language on and on. There is more to a country`s culture than footbal and beach, obviously you have a very shallow idea of what it is to be an Australian or a member of any other national group.

fml says:

02:29pm | 22/06/11

My post went right over your head Jane,

“Australia is only too willing to give up its own culture and change laws in its own country to accomodate immigrants over locals.” What laws exactly are we changing? or have changed?

Reggie says:

03:44pm | 22/06/11

fml, I presume you do realise that by the time you have defined yourself as an Ustrayn, your definition is out of date?

The only way to conserve your so-called Ustraynism is to cut yourself off from the rest of the world, which is exactly what the original inhabitants of the continent tried to do. Take a lesson from their travail.

fml says:

04:10pm | 22/06/11

reggie,

thats why i am saying base the definition of your cultural identity on something that is not outside yourself.

” presume you do realise that by the time you have defined yourself as an Ustrayn, your definition is out of date?”

What if i base my australian cultural identity on the frame of mind that i am australian? Why base it on perishable physical items? The only time my definition is out of date is if i base my identity on factors which are controlled by others.

I am australian. Not because i go to the footy, or like bbq’s or any other social stereotypes, but because i am, and that will never be out of date and can never be taken away.

Jay Santos says:

04:35pm | 22/06/11

“...You think that ham sandwiches epitomises Australian culture?...”

You appear to be struggling so I’ll break it down so you you can understand.

Increased immigration of one particular religious group into their area saw the municipal council change its by-laws so as not to offend that group.

Increased immigration of a religious group into another has seen the local council prohibit one gender’s the ability to swim - a thoroughly Australian cultural identification - on any day or time of their choosing.

“...i didnt know any such existed…”

I suggest you acquaint yourself further with racial and religious discrimination law.

“...What laws exactly are we changing? or have changed?...”

Ibid; I also suggest you acquaint yourself with the recent Federal Court (and possible High Court) trial charging Herald Sun newspaper columnist with offences under the Racial Discrimination Act.

Cultural identification can be quite costly, or lucrative, depending oin where you stand.

Tchom says:

04:35pm | 22/06/11

@ Jay
“So explain to me why I can no longer order ham sandwiches for council functions in the City of Hume but I can in the City of Glen Eira? “

Becaus of the JEWS!

Jay Santos says:

04:41pm | 22/06/11

“...I am australian. Not because i go to the footy, or like bbq’s or any other social stereotypes, but because i am, and that will never be out of date and can never be taken away…”

Sniff…That sounds like a line from a Seekers song.

You must work in advertising.

Tim says:

10:07am | 23/06/11

Australia has no culture, we are only 200 years old, and borne of people of many different background and cultures. Furthermore, any Australian (if any) who is decended of the first ‘Australians’ (read: the first fleet) are in fact decendants of boat-people. There cannot be too many people born here today that do not have a trace of immigration in their lineage. Illegal or not, it shouldnt matter.

AliceC says:

08:51am | 22/06/11

Budz +1

Roderick Schneider says:

02:27pm | 22/06/11

I’m saying that the real human rights violation lays in other countries.

The people who you speak of may well have valid concers.

Budz says:

04:07pm | 22/06/11

Roderick, let’s not compare our human rights with other countries that aren’t renowned for that aspect.

Roderick Schneider says:

08:41am | 22/06/11

I agree Jarred. Unfortunately, I didn’t write the title.

Jason Smith says:

09:17am | 22/06/11

Jarred nailed it. And this peice is unfortunately just the usual cut and paste political slogans. I wish there was a way to completely remove all forms of government from this situation.

Static says:

10:26am | 22/06/11

Im feeling sorry for a man named jesus who told quite a famous story about the good samaritan when he was asked “who is my Brother”. Gee hed be called a wet lefty these days. You may well have tough on refugee views people but dont you dare call yoursels Christian!!

Demoman says:

11:17am | 22/06/11

He used racist, xenophobic and bigotry all in the same sentence, amazing.

Jarred I suggest if you do not wish to come across as an overly emotional woman you should drop the shaming language, the emotive terms and stop trying to manipulate people into agreeing with your position.

It’s pretty embarrassing that you are a man.

Lostie says:

08:27am | 22/06/11

It makes you “a person with a tough stance on refugees” - it has no reference to race.
Is it really necessary to break it down to one word? to fit it into some simplistic label? More importantly, why is there some desire to fit it into the most offensive label you can find.

DY says:

08:37am | 22/06/11

Lostie it was a legit question. If he is going to be a future politician I would liek to know what he stands for.

Reg says:

09:15am | 22/06/11

The term racist would have to be one of the most misused words in the English language.

It’s thrown around so much these days that it has almost become meaningless…

Outside of a small minority, I doubt many people truly believe that they are inherently superior to others not of their race (be it white, black, yellow, green or whatever).

Tony Derpott says:

09:19am | 22/06/11

If it looks like a racist, sounds like a racist, smells like a racist…

“But but but I am not a racist… however…”

anti-news unlimited indeed

Lostie says:

09:29am | 22/06/11

He stated what he stands for:

A tough stance on refugees.

A one policy candidate (we have a few).

He explained the reason above without reference to race, beyond a perfunctory acknowledgement that some would accuse him of racism. You are seeking a one word response to a question that doesn’t have a one word answer.

A tough stance on refugees is self explanatory. It doesn’t make a person racist nor does it make them anything else. The desire to group the individual with some arbitrary label does an injustice to your own intellect and to the views of the individual concerned.

He has expressed views on nothing other than refugees, and he has clearly stated his position.

If you are asking about other policies, your reference to racism does yourself further injustice.

What possible answer could he offer to your question? Clearly it is not enough to it make him a person with the stated view, so I find myself wondering “what would be a suitable answer? What is being asked?”.

Roderick Schneider says:

09:35am | 22/06/11

As above DY, I didn’t write the title. As mentioned in the article, I do take a strong stance against people smugglers who exploit refugees and wrecklessly endanger lives, and I feel sorry for refugees who are the victims of this exploitation.

DY says:

10:31am | 22/06/11

If you are asking about other policies, your reference to racism does yourself further injustic. Lostie where did I reffer to him as a racist? Did you take your medivation this morning?

Tim says:

10:52am | 22/06/11

It makes you a rationalist.

DY says:

01:05pm | 22/06/11

Thanks Roderick for your reply. Muach appreciated.

MK says:

05:02pm | 25/06/11

I say it doesnt, you racist
but chanting “stop the boats”, appearing tough on refugees, and cooking the books does not make a solution either.
I am equally dismayed at the large number who think that being tough is racism, as i am with large number of people who think the Howard government atcually had a solution, especially that would work now.

If we want to stop people smugglers using boats to set sail for Australia
The Pacific “Solution” sure aint going to cut it
Try again

Roderick Schneider says:

08:44am | 22/06/11

Hopefully this documentary goes a long way in progressing the conversation on these issues in the ‘Lucky Country’ Jimmy.

egg says:

12:03pm | 22/06/11

jimmy, i feel ya. i’d rather BE a refugee than treat other people who (no matter what is said otherwise) have done nothing wrong but attempt to better their horrible situations.

this show should be mandatory viewing for the entire country.

Erick says:

03:33pm | 22/06/11

Jimmy, I agree. I am also ashamed that you are an Australian.

Troy says:

02:46pm | 23/06/11

Not as ashamed as to know you are an Australia Erick ( And i bet your great grandparents or grandparents came here from another country )

Kika says:

03:01pm | 22/06/11

Quirk…

Outraged says:

08:47pm | 22/06/11

LOL Kika, your smug one-line proves Jaz’s point!

Instead of answering their question, you make a dismissive remark about a spelling mistake…and nothing about the argument!

Pathetic Kika!

Kika says:

01:02pm | 23/06/11

No, entirely correct.  What’s wrong with pointing out a spelling error? Doesn’t it irritate you? Especially when the word they are really using to embellish their point is ‘quirk’

fml says:

05:09pm | 23/06/11

I thought he was talking about an elementary particle and a fundamental constituent of matter. Quark.

marley says:

09:00am | 22/06/11

Actually, most refugees do live in camps - the camps are located either outside the country of origin (ie Afghans in Pakistani refugee “villages”) or in safe enclaves within the country of origin. They are comparatively safe, and while living conditions can be pretty appalling, they aren’t necessarily any worse than the conditions of the surrounding villages.

Most refugees have neither the money nor the means to get much further than the nearest camp.  That’s the reality.  (That’s not to say that those who do have the money to get further away aren’t refugees, it’s just to say that they aren’t necessarily in greater need than those who can go only as far as their feet will take them).

marley says:

09:03am | 22/06/11

The UN Convention doesn’t blackmail us into anything.  We voluntarily signed up to it, and we voluntarily incorporated it into our law.

And in case you hadn’t noticed, most of those people “whose cultural and belief systems” you so despise, arrive through our skilled worker and family migration programs and not through the refugee program.

Septimus says:

09:03am | 22/06/11

Oh, so don’t mention when white Australians behave like animals?

TChong says:

09:05am | 22/06/11

good one Mick- marvellous to see the way the gang beat those innocent people up on the train.
Surrounding someone and beating the hell out of them.
That was brave.
Were you able to throw a punch, then run away ?
What a hero!
Maybe you can take all your fellow trolls away with you, and go drink from the same toilet bowl somewhere else.

fml says:

09:46am | 22/06/11

Mick,

Clearly not objective, Its your divisive attitude is the problem, the innocent people were the ones being hit on both sides, the problem people in the cronulla riots were the ones doing the fighting. On both sides.

Jack Richards says:

10:28am | 22/06/11

@Tchong - yeah, and did you see the Leb gangs beating up, knifing and shooting innocents whites? Or shooting up the Block in Redfern in a revenge attack for their gang mates being given a hiding in Lithgow gaol by Aboriginal prisoners who were sick of their bullying and racism?

Maybe you ought to put both your eyes in before you go talking through your arse.

I was absolutely appalled by the Cronulla Riot - appalled that is by the gutless reaction of the police to convoys of immigrant thugs, armed to the teeth, out looking for any “skip” they could beat, murder or rape. I was very pleased to see the people of Cronull finally rise up and say, in unmistakable terms, enough is enough and we won’t take it any more!

What a bunch of holier-than-thou one-eyed hypocrites and yellow-backed cowards are Septimus, Tchong and fml. What absolute racists - blaming the whites and Australian patriots as usual for standing up for secular values and the freedom to go to a beach without being bullied by ethnic gangs.

Mick, I couldn’t be in more agrement with you.

Ando says:

10:46am | 22/06/11

And then there is people like Mick.

fml says:

10:56am | 22/06/11

Jacky boy,

“blaming the whites and Australian patriots”, Where did i do that? I said blame lay with anyone on both sides who raised a finger in anger.

Tsk, Tsk.

Jimmy says:

11:23am | 22/06/11

@ Mick

“patriotic Australians” - a bunch of over testosterone rednecks who think they have the right to take the law into their own hands by turning Sydney into a war zone.

I love Australia just as much as anybody else, but what happened that day whether anglo-Australian or any other ethic group was just plain disturbing.

rb says:

11:29am | 22/06/11

That is not patriotic. (unselfishly devoted to the service of one’s country.) It was thuggery.

frank says:

01:18pm | 22/06/11

tc chong,

probably the most lasting images of that day to me was later in he night when one australian was walking down the street and was attacked by about thirty middle eastern people belting him with sticks, boots bottles and whatever else they had. this was for revenge, guess that makes it ok in your eyes
that was never metioned again. how come?
i have asked the question before, but no one answers it. did these riots start one day coz a group of of australians just woke up one day and thought, this is a great day to go to riot, OR, were they reacting to some previous events??  see revenge above, why is this different ?

My favourite quote of the day was a car load of middle eastern people doing burnouts in a car screaming at the media “you cunts are all dead”, again never seen after the day, why?

Septimus says:

01:41pm | 22/06/11

fml

No point talking to him while he’s ‘frothing’... he’s not prepared to see that whites also behaved poorly that day.

Jack Richards says:

02:48pm | 22/06/11

They always manage it don’t they, always manage to blame the whites. Turn it around, twist it around, delete a bit here, add a bit there and you always find the eternal criminal: the white man.

All those poor people of “middle eastern appearance” who did nothing, provoked no-one and were callously and unjustly set upon by a liquored-up mob of Anglo racist red-necks! That’s the way the story turned out, didn’t it?

What Frank said is true - how come the endless thuggery and the beating up of life guards by men of “middle eastern appearance” and their subsequent bashing and knifing of whites in “revenge” attacks was quickly swept under the PC carpet? Incidentally, PC means “pertpetual cowards” or you can pick another four-letter word begining with “c”.

Goodonyer Frank!

Septimus says:

03:10pm | 22/06/11

Jack,

I have no issue with the white man not getting a fair go.  I have no issue with the white man being blamed for everything.

The white man must change things with responsible action, voice not violence and thuggery.

josh says:

02:24pm | 23/06/11

Cronulla was a defining moment in Australia’s history, one which we can look back on with pride. Now if the locals had been organised the following night instead of cowering in their homes hoping the Police would deal with the fallout..

well we would arguably have a different Sydney in 2011

I can see events like Cronulla happening again, because more people are saying ‘enough’.

Troy says:

03:04pm | 23/06/11

So Josh, Jack Richards and Mick is it patriotic to roam the beachs and train stations during the cronulla riots with a hugh gang of my mates while blind drunk with an Australia flag hanging around my shoulds and bash and abuse any one who does not like white like me and act like an ANIMAL!!!  If its patriotic to behave like an ANIMAL then I’m 100% not patrictic because i am a human being before an ANIMAL!!!

hot tub political machine says:

03:10pm | 23/06/11

Yep, I’ve never been prouder of my fellow whites than when they were throwing beer bottles at police….what a fine, fine time for Australia that was

josh says:

03:57pm | 23/06/11

The people turned on the police because (as mentioned by Mick) the Police turned a blind eye to events preceeding that day, yet they had no problems swinging batons at young Aussies on the train station - you don’t ever see them swinging batons at middle eastern gangs though, they’re too scared.

What happened at Cronulla showed the majority never voted for multiculturalism & want a return to the happy carefree days before this melting pot madness came in and it absolutely scares the lefties stupid - it was a massive reality check for them & I can see it happening again the way things are going.

hot tub political machine says:

04:44pm | 23/06/11

Right, so people felt they where getting inadequate policing and thought it through and decided the best way to deal with this was not to complain, or request a meeting at the police station, or contact the minister for police but instead to empty their alcohol containers, and hurl them at police. How’s that supposed to improve things again? Pardon me if I don’t think of police assaulters as my heroes.

fml says:

05:05pm | 23/06/11

hahah, great comment Hot TUB.

joshwhite says:

10:22am | 24/06/11

It improved things because Cronulla is a town that has been saved, a few publicity stunts with ‘burqini’s’ didn’t change things - the place has been saved from the horrors of multiculturalism.

What you will find happening in the future will be Aussies moving to areas like this where they can escape this melting pot garbage.

AliceC says:

08:56am | 22/06/11

My understanding is that there are tens of thousands of people overstaying their visas, taking Australian jobs illegally, but no one is up in arms about them…

marley says:

10:01am | 22/06/11

There are, at any one time, something like 45 to 50,000 visa overstayers in Australia.  Some would be visa students, some would be temporary workers, some would be visitors and some are doubtless backpackers.  Most go home in due course.  It’s a problem, but hardly one of the scale the US and the EU have with illegal migrants.

fml says:

11:37am | 22/06/11

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

frank says:

01:31pm | 22/06/11

fml

your quote has nothing to do with australia, unless you are again trying to re write history.
those words are from the united staes, a country that you have and continue to ridicule and deride at every opprtunity.
why such faith in us now?

fml says:

02:14pm | 22/06/11

frank,

I was referring to Marley and the scale of illegal immigrants in the US that he was referring to.

If there is something i feel needs ridiculing, i will ridicule. Why faith in australia now? because, even though i know australia could do more, i know australia could process asylum seekers more efficiently, i also have faith that Australia will never shirk from its international responsibility.

frank says:

02:41pm | 22/06/11

fml

you misunderstand me. when i say us i dont mean australia

i live in the united states and ask again after all of your comments ridiculing, bad mouthing us, as in those who live here, why use one of the quotes that is dear to our hearts, to push your own aggenda

“f there is something i feel needs ridiculing i will ridicule” do it all want, but dont be a freaking hypocryte

fml says:

03:55pm | 22/06/11

frank,

The whole purpose of a democracy is to question the actions of the government. If need be, ridicule our representatives when they act on our behalf.

Since when is the government of any country beyond reproach? Oh i get it, if you blindly follow the government then you are a true patriot.

My point when writing the poem from ellis island is that we westerners pride ourselves on our compassion to the less fortunate, then when it suits us, call it a problem.

Lana says:

09:56am | 22/06/11

AustraliaUN, you’re so right! We really should take a tough stance on drivers in disguise. They’re ruining the fabric of this country. They live by their own rules and have no respect for the Australian way of life.

People who drive around in a fake moustaches, people on mopeds with coke bottle glasses… And wigs! Let’s not forget the wigs! They are just un-Australian!

So to all those disguises out there, we don’t want you. We don’t want your enclaves around $2 bargain shops and we don’t want shipments of cheap plastic masks coming into our clean wholesome suburbs. Just GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM.

St. Michael says:

11:49am | 22/06/11

“Just GO BACK TO WHERE YOU CAME FROM.”

That’s what the Aboriginals said!

DY says:

01:33pm | 22/06/11

AustraliUN you hit the nail on the head. If we live in their country and dont follow their way of life we would be kicked out.

Leopard says:

02:14pm | 22/06/11

You know this -  because you were there, St. Michael?

St. Michael says:

05:37pm | 22/06/11

The Aboriginals also said they didn’t like leopards, Leopard.

John says:

09:44am | 22/06/11

It’s marxist agenda, UN was founded on marxist ideals, They want to destroy all the borders, christianity and want to throw every race, religion and culture in the same cook pot. But they want to rule them also, the Marxists want to be rulers of all races, cultures and religions. Their agenda today, is all about primary depowering the white man, his culture and his religion, as they see him as the only one that can oppose the marxist agenda. Immigration, Multiculturalism, is all party of International Marxist Agenda.

Warren says:

11:00am | 22/06/11

@Jack Richards. In Australia everyone has a right to express their opinion. The fact you may not like that opinion or be offended is irrelevant.

As far you you being an uncultured bogan,well anyone can read your comments & make their own minds up about that.

fml says:

12:10pm | 22/06/11

“Why isn’t there a UN Army that can go into places like Burma, Somalia, Sudan, Iran and most of Africa, disarm the gangs of thugs that run these places, and impose sensible government for the next 50 years?”

In the case of Iran, the CIA overthrew the only democratically elected leader they had.

“That is, about 95% of the people in this country are branded as racists, xenophobes, islamophobes, white supremacists, hansonites etc.” No they are not.

“The bleeding hearts and leftards love giving away things that don’t belong to them. They have no right to give away my country and it’s time they were stopped” You do not own this country, It belongs to every Australian Citizen.

“Why should we keep accepting Africans and Muslims who will never assimilate into the mainstream society of this country? ” Thats entirely untrue. Alot of people do assimilate.

“That means: no burqua clad women, no mosques, no mullahs and imams screaming from pulpits and minarets, no african youth gangs loitering around train stations and shopping malls, no enclaves, no ghettos, no “ethnic” communities. You get the picture?”
That means if you do not live like me dont bother coming here, That is a great advertisement for democracy.

“If it was up to me, I’d send every boat person back and sink the next boat to cross our borders. That would end people smugglig quite abruptly I think.”
then you would go to jail my friend, and you wonder why people call you names? they call you names because they don’t call for the death of innocent people, its funny i think you and the extremist elements in religious circles are quite similar and would probably get along very well.

Jack Richards says:

01:15pm | 22/06/11

Gee FML you sure have put me in my place, haven’t you. Please pardon me all the way to hell.

It surely must feel good to be as pure and enlightened and always right as you are. A veritable paragon of perfection selflessly exercising your right to didacticly boor every one else to death with your lofty self-righteousness.

You are wrong. Australia is MY COUNTRY and I should have a right to say who comes here and who does not. That question has never been put to me. The decision has been made by all the self-serving egotistical politicians who want to feel good about themselves and inflict the misery of their ill-informed and ignorant decisions upon the great masses of the unwashed in the outer suburbs.

So all those Africans standing around outside the Blacktown Mall, or Frankston Railway Station, or brawling in the Rundle Mall, threatening and intimidating white Australians are assimilated are they? How about all those nice refugees we took in during the Lebanese Civil war - you know the ones who have turned Lakemba into a no-go enclave, who shoot up police stations, shoot up Redfern in the dead of night, run the illegal drug industry, form nice little gangs a la the Skaife brothers. Yep, you are right, they are well assimilated. They have really adopted Australian secular values and our culture. But I forget, there was also that islamic refugee gang planning to do a suicide raid on Holsworthy Army camp. Now you can’t get more assimilated than that.

Really, what planet are you on? You are such a fool, and a self-righteous and pedantic one at that.

“That means if you do not live like me dont bother coming here,” I couldn’t have said it better myself. Who invited the bastards anyway? It surely wasn’t me.

“then you would go to jail my friend” YOU aren’t my friend and never will be. If there is one thing I can’t stand it’s self-appointed saints and moralising bastards like you, crawling around with that big yellow streak down your back glimmering in the sunlight; pontificating from your ivory tower and sitting in judgement on us lesser mortals, chortling into your smoked salmon milkshake about just how common, ignornant and uninformed are people like me. I am one of those bogans everyone with any class detests so much: an older white man and a direct descendant of four convicts who came here on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th fleets; I like beer and smoking and playing poker machines and betting on the nags; I never go to Church and never will; I detest authority and have no respect at all for my betters or society’s elite. I even have a Souther Cross tatto on my left bicep. I say my piece and no smarmy bastard is going to stop me; and I have all these freedoms because people like me i.e. my father and two grandfathers, fought for them at Gallipolli, on the Western Front and the islands of the Pacific.

They fought and died for a free Australia, a secular Australia, an egalitarian Australia, and a white Australia.

They must be turning in their graves to see how this country has been taken over by the sycophants and poofters and crawling appeasers, do-gooders and wowsers, muslims and other religious cranks and lunatics, all vying with each other to impose some new law and strip away my freedoms.

People like me have just about had a gutfull - and there are lots of us. We’re sick of it. I’m a white man and proud of it and I don’t feel the slightest bit of guilt and I don’t see any reason at all why I should hand this country over to foreigners who come here illegally, and then apologise to them, and then pay for them from now until eternity.

So if, being a red-necked xenophobic bogan, I haven’t made myself clear FML, take yourself and your patronising and false comments go and get intercoursed.

fml says:

01:38pm | 22/06/11

Jack,

“I should have a right to say who comes here and who does not. “

You do, its called voting.

But funny thing about a democracy, so can everyone else.

Jack Richards says:

02:59pm | 22/06/11

I’ve worked it out. FML stands for Female Muslim Lunatic or is is Fraudulent Masochistic Lumpashit?

We have a democracy here do we? When was migration or our membership and compliance with the UN or having to endure an invasion ever put to the vote?

What we get in this country every time there is an election is a choice between shit and poop - a whole gaggle of egotistical self-servers and careerists whose only interest is their personal aggrandisement and feathering their own nests.

fml says:

03:51pm | 22/06/11

“We have a democracy here do we? When was migration or our membership and compliance with the UN or having to endure an invasion ever put to the vote?”

When the government THAT WAS VOTED IN, introduced it. Its impossible to give the vote to people for every single issue that is brought up by some nutjob on an opinion website.

Gran Depine says:

04:23pm | 22/06/11

Well said fml! Gran Stands up and claps loudly. Well said!

Troy says:

03:12pm | 23/06/11

OMG stop crying the poor white man line!!!

Troy says:

03:37pm | 23/06/11

Your a coward Jack!!!  Reading your comments it is easy to see you are nothing but a Redneck Racist who is to much of a coward to say he is a racist!!!  Be a man and stand by your racist views and say you don’t like anyone who isn’t white!!! 

And Jack if it was up to me every person with the same views as you a would ship you back to the country your Ancestor come from asap because your ancestor are not from this country and nethier are you!!!

This is my country you are a joke Jack!!!  The only people in this country who can claim to own this country are the Aborigines and how much of they Culture have you leaned since your ancestor came to Australia!!!

Just remember Jack your Anestors came here on BOATS to!!!

hot tub political machine says:

04:06pm | 23/06/11

Australia is your country Jack? Funny. I can’t remember the voters signing it over to you, when did that happen?

Roderick Schneider says:

02:14pm | 30/06/11

Glad to know (some) people got the point Mayday.

Roderick Schneider says:

02:13pm | 30/06/11

I had my share of the coffee writing it Simon. Thanks for the feedback, and I hope it wasn’t too bad after the caffeine hit.

Bill says:

11:04am | 22/06/11

Quite a few are cleaning house. And claiming the dole, and living in housing commission houses, at the same time.

Kim says:

11:34am | 22/06/11

I read the same reports but realised that it didn’t mean they were not working (many were, albeit mostly in low income jobs)and that they included such payments as baby bonuses, family payments and carers payments, now I’ve no idea if you understand how family payments work but they tend to last for at least 18 years per child, and the majority of our population (regardless of race) who have children receive some family payment benefit.  I’d like it if people like you educated themselves with facts instead of typing the rubbish you do that causes more alienation towards refugees.

Anna C says:

12:20pm | 22/06/11

Kim, income support payments are things like Disability Pensions and the dole. Income supplements are things like Family Tax Benefits, Baby bonus etc. There is a difference and I should know cause I worked at Centrelink for 10 years.

fml says:

01:00pm | 22/06/11

AnnaC,

No body makes you feel guilty but yourself. That is to say, you cannot feel guilty without permission from yourself.

Cloud Strife says:

10:37am | 22/06/11

Hey, it wasn’t just the ABC and SBS. There was a news ‘story’ about the show on Sunrise this morning (I didn’t watch it either, 10 seconds of Raquel make sure I wouldn’t).

John The Baptist says:

03:16pm | 22/06/11

Well done Dan you just summed up the idiots that post here

but you forgot “right wing tony abbott loving xenophobe”

Sad Sad Reality says:

02:53pm | 22/06/11

Because it suits their political aims. Once you are a race (other than white), any attack on you is racism. Thus the machinery of law can back your push to power.

marley says:

11:13am | 22/06/11

Very good points.

Compassionate says:

11:27am | 22/06/11

“Compassion’ gets thrown around a lot, incorrectly I agree.

And maybe we can’t base our policy on it. But the whole point of any policy consideration in Australia is to mitigate harshness and unjust results. So compassion is integral to the debate. To have a policy that treats them as other human beings is a compassionate one. It does not mean a faulty, ‘soft’, or inadequate one.

Unfortunately, many people overlook this distinction.

Samuel says:

12:03pm | 22/06/11

@Compassionate

I agree. It has to be part of the discussion at some level, but it can’t be the be all and end all. I remember watching Q&A and Sarah Hanson-Young said at one point “I think we just need to be more compassionate” which might be true, but it’s also entirely unhelpful.

The other issue is that being compassionate has to factor in that it is not compassionate to let desperate people get on leaky boats and have them hit rocks and sink. Getting on a people smuggler’s boat is dangerous, and it is not compassionate to just let that go.

AliceC says:

12:10pm | 22/06/11

So because some are bad apples, they should all be tarred with the same brush?

Bitten says:

12:37pm | 22/06/11

@AliceC - well, according to the left all Aussies are racist based on the behaviour of a few, so I guess we have to tar all refugees on the basis of the behaviour of a few. I mean, unless we want to be hypocritical about it…

Looney Lefty says:

11:23am | 22/06/11

Yeah, you’re right, Looney Lefties promote all the propaganda. I feel brainwashed.

The ‘Stop the Boats’ campaign, meanwhile, is a masterpiece of objective and rational thinking. It in no way plays to the bigotted and prejudice emotions of mis-informed masses.

Your utilitarian stance is also morally stable. I agree the ends always justifies the means. So did Hitler. And Stalin. Hmm, guess its not based on your political position after all. Just good old fashioned objective logical thinking.

Chewy says:

12:03pm | 22/06/11

Yep as dumbed down and repugnant as it sounds ‘stop the boats’ seems rational to me if it stops hundreds of people drowning at sea, certainly more compassionate than this deadly ‘humane’ approach.
I would rather show compassion to some poor bugger who has been waiting in a refugee camp for ten years than someone who has the financial means to get here.
Afew years ago when Chris Evans announced the government was going to take a more ‘humane’ and ‘compassionate’ approach I was horrified because I knew the outcomes would be drownings at sea.
But what do I know I am just one of the biggoted ill informed masses

Jay Santos says:

01:27pm | 22/06/11

@Looney Lefty

Pop Quiz:

Who famously said “...Another boat on the way. Another policy failure…”

For 100 points…
Who said it?
To what was the person referring? 
When was it said?
What was their job at the time?

Extra bonus points…
What job does that person currently have?

Jack Richards says:

11:32am | 22/06/11

Q. “We are a Christian country after all…. aren’t we? “

A. No. Mostly we’re post religious as evidenced by the fact that less than one in ten people attend relgious services . But we are becoming islamified as demonstrated by the fact that these ignorant and backward lunatics get away with anything and everything by screaming “racism”, “discrimination”, “islamophobia” and forever being “offended” and “insulted” by anyone who does not agree with them on everything.

Q 2. Isn’t it about being decent human beings ourselves?

A. What’s your definition of “decency”? Back in the 1930s people like Neville Chamberlain and the leaders of France, Holland, Norway, Denmark and the USA were “decent human beings” who didn’t want to offend people like Mussolini, Hitler, Tojo and Franco. That kind of decency is called APPEASEMENT. It is not decency, it is cowardice and quivering fear from all those jelly-backs in society who are so gutless they don’t want to upset some poor diddums sensibilities.

Bobster says:

02:31pm | 22/06/11

@ Jack Richards,

Your examples make no sense. Learning the basic context of appeasement apparently hasn’t helped you there.

Consider Chamberlains motivations, specifically, the loss of an entire generation of young Brits 21-years hence and the prospect of slaughtering another generation of boys.  Do you think that might have influenced his thinking to a greater extent than concern over Hitler’s feelings?

Also, you’re a racist and aone that sits at that particularly dangerous level of intellect.

Kudos on learning to spell though - you’ve set yourself apart from your contemporaries there.

marley says:

11:31am | 22/06/11

I agree with some of what you say, but not all.  For example, the argument about “proper channels” - well there isn’t one in Kabul because, by definition, a refugee must be outside his country of nationality.  I can guarantee you if an Afghan approaches the UNHCR in Pakistan, however, he will find proper channels.  And he doesn’t need to speak English to do so. 

Nor is it a question of trying to clear everyone in the camps.  The UNHCR believes that, of the 35 million refugees worldwide, the number suitable for permanent resettlement is about 800,000 - a large figure, but not an impossible one.  Resettlement countries take 125,000 or so out of the camps every year - if more countries took more resettlement cases, that 800,000 would start to dwindle.

So the problem isn’t that there aren’t proper channels, but that the numbers of cases taken for resettlement are quite small.  And also, it must be said, your chances of being accepted as a refugee in the camps are smaller because the decisions made there are often more realistic than the ones made here.

Kassandra says:

12:54pm | 22/06/11

So what?
Everyone in this country is descended from immigrants. Even most of the indigenous population has more immigrant than native blood. Go back another step in history and you find nearly every country in the world has been invaded, conquered, settled etc by waves of settlers, immigrants and “refugees” from other places. We all come originally from people who moved out of Africa after the ice receded.
The problem we have now is the sheer number of people on the planet and the fact that most of them are born into harsh poverty. Most of the world is made up of “those who have so little” as you call them.
The problem will be sorted for us when the next ice age arrives.

rb says:

02:51pm | 22/06/11

@ Clare
Thank you for your post.
@ Kassandra
My family immigrated here too. But from Britian which makes a huge difference. The only thing against my ancestors was a lack of money and not the ignorance of others.

Roderick Schneider says:

02:42pm | 22/06/11

That’s interesting, I think your first paragraph summarises a large portion of my piece, and the last paragraph condemns it.

Regardless of my misunderstanding of your comment, I join with you in hoping the show does it’s job, and more than my article, in helping many people to form an opinion.

Gregg says:

11:26pm | 22/06/11

@Emily,
” It comes down to what you will do to save yourself and your family, and people have gone to far greater lengths than paying someone to get them out of a dangerous country. These are people. They have been persecuted for no reason. How can we imprison them for doing something almost any one would do in that situation “

First of all Emily, it is quite understandable that there will be some people who will want to choose another country to live in for various reasons and if they have the opportunity, and whilst there is a UN convention, Australia just like any other country has a right to police its borders.

Secondly, asylum seekers arriving without a visa are detained and though that has some parallels to imprisonment, when you have people arriving en masse without any identification there are checks that need to occur.

Thirdly, what is it you would do with all the asylum seekers if not detaining them to check their IDs and claims?
Would you just let them be wandering about some cities or towns having to fend for themselves!

There is something called law and order within this country, not to mention the need for exercising control over who is let in.

BLA says:

11:58pm | 22/06/11

Yes Emily, ignorance about how much many of the so called refugees take Australians for fools they are, because they believe every well concocted story they present. They have a wonderful system in place that teaches them what to do nd say to get the refugee status here, then to get wellfare and disability pensions and so on. Our country is held hostage by the outdated UN convention, and by the loud, arrogant refugee industry.

Roderick Schneider says:

02:19pm | 30/06/11

Thanks a lot Luce!

AdamC says:

01:34pm | 22/06/11

I saw that story on SBS News too. It’s why I didn’t bother watching the show.

Roderick Schneider says:

02:21pm | 30/06/11

Fantastic perspective Mrs K.

Leah says:

12:41pm | 22/06/11

I think you will find that most of these people who defy our laws actually came here perfectly legally with normal visas, however most people who come here as asylum seekers would be quite happy to follow our laws.

(And yes, I’m one of those tough-stance-on-asylum-seekers people. But let’s get the facts straight.)

Christina says:

12:49pm | 22/06/11

People are not permitted to enter public buildings with helmets on and women wearing burkas should not be permitted to drive cars -because it is not possible to see clearly wearing a burka and because they cannot be seen. Wear a burka and stay inside, or be welcomed into the Australian community where we can see each other face to face. Why do such women come to a country and insist on their own customs? Is it their choice or imposed on them by fathers, husbands brothers and religion?

Erick says:

03:30pm | 22/06/11

Us = Aborigines.

And look what happened to the Aborigines.

Bobster says:

04:19pm | 22/06/11

Yes, Erick, yes. It is also worth noting the superior numbers and weaponry possessed by boat people.

mike j says:

04:56pm | 22/06/11

Exactly, Erick.

Their standard of living massively improved, they no longer had to work for a living, and they got exposed to a whole bunch of new drugs that get them really, really fucked up.

Hang on… what was the problem with boat people, again?

Leopard says:

08:48pm | 22/06/11

Did the convicts pay to come to Australia?
Is anyone forcing illegal boatpeople onto these vessels coming to Australia?

Bobster says:

09:58am | 23/06/11

I don’t suppose you can count the real and present threat of death and torture as force so, no, it is an entirely voluntary exercise.

Leah says:

12:43pm | 22/06/11

“I know they may have done it legally but my point is they seem to have ‘assimilated’ quite nicely. “

Then explain my landlady’s mother who, despite being in Australia for 40+ years, still can’t speak English. Because she just found an Italian community to live in!

I am all for immigration and really, have nothing against the Europeans who came here after the war or those refugees who are escaping war-torn countries now. Most are happy to assimilate. But not all.

John says:

01:12pm | 22/06/11

Africa is huge problem, The white’s of that country should be given asylum to leave that basket case continent. I have no idea how a white person can even remain in south Africa. There future and their children future seems destined for destruction. Buy a plane ticket to europe and get the hell out of there.

marley says:

01:34pm | 22/06/11

You’re right about the distinction between asylum seekers and refugees but wrong about illegal immigrants.  Most illegal immigrants in Australia are Asian - Chinese, Malaysian, Indonesian, etc.

Roderick Schneider says:

02:26pm | 30/06/11

I would like to dispute the title too Leah! Unfortunately I didn’t select it.
If you’re the same Leah who posted above, it sounds like you have a lot to contribute to the debate.
Thanks for the comments.

Austin 3:16 says:

04:47pm | 22/06/11

How long did you spend in Indonesia as a refugee to figure out how far your money went? I think it might be possible that in some countries in our region a person without recognised legal rights, like say a refugee, might not always get full value for their dollar.

I’d be amazed at any genuine asylum seeker who had the financial resources to get to Australia more quickly and didn’t use those resources.

marley says:

01:24pm | 22/06/11

Look, it takes about a week to run all the basic health checks anyone could wish for on these people.  As for security issues, unless it’s something really obvious, we’re never going to know anyway. 

It’s not difficult to make a preliminary evaluation of health, security risk, and whether the refugee claim is likely to be legitimate.  Why not release those people (they’re going to be accepted anyway) and detain the ones who are likely to be refused?  You’ll cut detention numbers by half without increasing the risk to the public.

And it’s pretty difficult to just disappear if your fingerprints are on file, which is what sensible countries do with asylum seekers.  The first time you try to get Centerlink benefits, you’re nailed by those pesky prints.

Kika says:

03:06pm | 22/06/11

Because in most places in the world, women and children are valued. Men are usually the breadwinners as well, so families pool their resources to send a young male off to find somewhere safe to obtain asylum for their family.
You may also be suprised to know that often there is no option for applying formally before leaving a country as the person/people are being persecuted by the government and must leave the country as quickly and quietly as possible.
Most of them who do apply for asylum arrive by air on other visas, and then apply for asylum once they are here. It is a fallacy to believe most arrive by boats. 44% of them currently arrive by boat. This has increased significantly since 08-09 which had 16% arriving by boat.

marley says:

01:41pm | 22/06/11

Did you miss the part where he took part in an expedition to various places which are starting points or transit points for asylum seekers on their journey?  That he had a look at actual conditions they encounter?  I suspect he has a far better understanding of the reality on the ground than you do.

If you disagree with his argument, fine.  But don’t assume it isn’t based on a good understanding of the facts.  It’s entirely possible for two people, presented with identical facts, to come to different conclusions.  That’s a thing that neither of the polarized sides in this debate recognizes.

Oh, and frankly, based on your comment, I don’t think it’s Roderick who is the ignorant dickhead here.

Bobster says:

02:27pm | 22/06/11

So, when a bourgeois tosser decides a “tough on refugees” stance, regardless of any of the actual issues that might have a meaningful impact on Australia, is acceptable, I’m not allowed to take issue with his perspective?

I’m not allowed to say that someone who took issue “with the undertone of the questions” asked of him?

Asking a question is an insinuation of racism now, is it?

I hope Julia Gillard goes to her grave knowing she unleashed this poison into our national discourse.

This is her fault. She has managed to move this debate to a point where it is a greater crime to call someone racist than it is to be a racist - even if the jerk was a racist.

Now, look at this bit:

“Refugees are a complex, global problem. Addressing the problems they face will require a multitude of ongoing policy measures and the cooperation of the global community. Reasonable measures, such as upholding the existing standards for humanitarian visas, should not be shouted down by those trying to claim a moral superiority.”

Do you know what that is? That’s a load of utter bullshit from an ignorant dickhead seeking to bolster his original views in the face of an experience that showed him what an ignorant dickhead he really is.

This is what it says:

“Nah mate, she’s all alright. It’s like a complex issue and stuff so just because I’m worried about the italian/greek/yellow/arab peril (pick one depending on your favourite decade) doesn’t mean you should be able to question my underlying motivations.”

At least he’s tacitly admitted the folly of the “economic refugee” argument that has also been allowed to poison this debate by providing succour and harbour to the rednecks who are trying to legitimise their racially motivated anguish over what is possibly the most minor issue facing Australia today.

Roderick, if you concerns were in anyway valid, they would be balanced against the scope of the issue. Once balanced, there should be no need to send you on a televised oddysey because you’d have some idea of how pointless your chosen issue is.

Incidently, pointing out that you are in fact a stereotypical xenophone doesn’t actually help your cause.

Put it this way, my intransigent miopic friends, complete ignorance of perspective and scale does, in fact, an ignorant dickhead make.

Your argument is tripe.

marley says:

04:23pm | 22/06/11

Yeah, you’re allowed to challenge him.  You’re allowed to disagree with him.  You’re allowed to propound your own views.

But if you say to someone just back from a tour of the refugee camps and detention centers, that he gets all his information from commercial networks and News Ltd publications, well I reckon you should be called on it.  Because, rather obviously, it’s not true.

Roderick’s right: the refugee issue is an enormously complex one, and one not helped by the level of misinformation being propounded by both sides of the argument.

Should this be a major issue here?  No, it shouldn’t, because the numbers are trivial compared to those arriving elsewhere.  Are we handling it humanely or effectively?  No, we’re bloody well not.  But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t aspects of the boat people movement that are being ignored by pro-refugee advocates - including the fact that every other boat movement in the world is a “mixed movement” of genuine refugees and economic migrants, and I’d be surprised if this one is any different;  that the way our system works favours boat people over people in camps even though the latter are generally more needy; and that there bloody well is a queue.

Bobster says:

09:34pm | 22/06/11

Well if your issue was the commercial television and News Ltd statement then I think your issue is with Roderick. He’s the one who raised it.

Regardless, that doesn’t change the fact that News Ltd is the single biggest influence on Australian public opinion and its failure to properly show the real scope of this issue is worthy of consideration when you’re accusing someone else - who raised the media question - of that same lack of scope.

And that doesn’t prevent this piece coming across as a stubborn attempt to justify a ludicrously strongly held opinion.

Steve says:

02:30pm | 22/06/11

Pardon my ignorance but what does that mean? I have seen you post that comment many times but don’t know what “flash crap” is.

Brian B says:

02:52pm | 22/06/11

Don’t mind him Steve, he’s a Steve Jobs fan.

Richard Utzon says:

03:12pm | 22/06/11

Harquebus what is flash crap
I want to know too but maybe you don’t either

St. Michael says:

05:09pm | 22/06/11

For Those Who Came In Late:

Adobe FlashPlayer is a program that allows you to link video into your webpages and play them.  You generally don’t hear of it unless Adobe knocks on your screen telling you an update’s available, or when you discover you can’t play an embedded video because you haven’t got it updated sufficiently.

Harquebus has a continuing crusade against the program I think because of security concerns with it, though I’d love to read the Harquebus Manifesto on this point.

Harquebus says:

06:00pm | 22/06/11

My computer can play all video types except, Quicktime, Realplayer and that Flash video crap. I don’t miss out on anything except, having installed a bandwidth and resource hog that is not beholdin’ to my browser’s security settings.

Bobster says:

01:42pm | 22/06/11

Don’t blame the left. It’s not their fault they’ve got more brushes than you.

Why don’t you examine your own point of view rather than just blaming all criticism on socialist ignorance?

Perhaps, just perhaps, you are wrong?

That cross your mind at all?

Lozza says:

05:26pm | 22/06/11

Not everything is as black and white as left vs right. There’s a whole lot of grey in between. I’m pro-refugee but anti carbon tax. So according to punchers, that would make me… a bleeding-heart redneck…

Bobster says:

10:01am | 23/06/11

Actually, pro-refugee and anti-carbon stances tax make you a Liberal voter circa 1980 - back before John Howard decided to steer the party in a new direction.

Lozza says:

01:57pm | 23/06/11

I agree Bobster, but it’s no longer 1980. The liberal party is no longer reflective of what it was then… thus they grey area.

Bobster says:

02:41pm | 23/06/11

I think the key problem with the right versus left argument is that most of the people who throw the labels around don’t know what it means.

It’s concerned with economics because libertarianism and authoritarianism exist in equal amounts on both ends of the spectrum.

My observations make me lean towards the idea that many who characterise themselves as right-wing consider any position that differs from theirs as left-wing. (This exists on the left too - especially at universities - my gut feeling is those who claim the right do more of it.)

I.e, someone called Ali a racist, they must therefore believe in market regulation, nationalised industrial and finance sectors and a progressive system of taxation.

I just find it really amusing to see everyone who disagrees with Tony Abbott immediately branded a socialist (particularly because the only party in Australia that openly espouses socialistic policies is the Nationals).

James says:

02:17pm | 22/06/11

That’s my friend is exactly what it is all about!

One Nation and Hansonism showed the Liberal party is vulnerable to losing their base on this issue, much like the Labor party lost theirs in the last election to the greens.

Add their “learning experience” of the Tampa winning them an election they were about to loose to the equation and it has conditioned a cohort of conservative politicians to dog whistle on the topic!

Politics is about votes, policy is about solutions!

John says:

02:17pm | 22/06/11

It’s classic marxist class war tactics. empower the minority, divide the population, create oppressed and oppressor class’s and then play them off one another while you slowly ingrain marxist culture in the society. This is what was done in the US, London! Civil Rights Movements, Feminism, sexual revolution in the 1960s, Atheism Movements, today they push more gay rights. The old idea of Christian, White, Free, Moral, Nationalist Western society has been targeted for Radical change, the result is to be a society based on marxist ideals.

David V. says:

02:41pm | 22/06/11

They’ve never read the sort of anti-Korean racism fuelled by China and Taiwan’s media and keyboard warriors, clearly jealous of superior Korean cultural and technological achievements (that’s why they keep plagiarising them).

Luce says:

04:50pm | 22/06/11

The phrase “genuine refugee” seems flexible these these days, as it includes people who can pay $10k a head to effectively jump the queue. That’s not far off a first class plane ticket to London..

John Hunt was a Coward says:

05:22pm | 22/06/11

Where does it say refugees can’t have resources ?, or access to funds ?, or have families who help them get to safety ?

There is no Queue - unless you consider rotting in a camp for 10 + years “A Queue”, that’s not a Queue, that’s a disgrace

It’s a completely ridiculous argument

Any human being caught in such a situation has an absolute right to use every resource at their disposal to get themselves and family to safety any way possible, INCLUDING BY BOAT

It is NOT illegal.

marley says:

06:52pm | 22/06/11

Actually, I’ve always wondered why we got stuck with the Tampa.  Shouldn’t it have been the Norwegians?

Gregg says:

11:50pm | 22/06/11

@Hunt
Maybe still a coward
” There is no Queue - unless you consider rotting in a camp for 10 + years “A Queue”, that’s not a Queue, that’s a disgrace “

So whilst it is OK to have people with money deciding on how they will enter Australia, you’ll say forget those in camps without money!

Some courageous attitude that is.

Bobster says:

02:43pm | 23/06/11

What queue, Luce? I wasn’t aware of the existence of a queue.

John Hunt was a coward says:

03:22pm | 22/06/11

So would you be happy if they arrived in a seaworthy cruise liner ?, Howard wasn’t when they threatened to arrive on a container ship (quite seaworthy)

RyaN says:

04:41pm | 22/06/11

@Ryan: wow what a stupid comment, if fact I haven’t read stupider.
If you are going to be a racist about white people, just come out and say it, because your comment is racist in itself implying that its only white people that don’t want people smugglers plying their trade at our expense and that of refugees sitting in camps all around the world waiting patiently.
I am sick of you racists who think its ok to make assumptions about people based on the colour of their skin.

Roderick Schneider says:

05:31pm | 22/06/11

Sorry Ryan, I didn’t write the title. I will use you as a perfect example of why I wrote the article though.

Kika says:

01:04pm | 23/06/11

Precisely… no issue with the Viets or the Bosnians… just an issue with the Afghans and the like.

Burns says:

12:03am | 24/06/11

No, Ryan is absolutely right. This farce where people try to rationalise their racist view in attempt to not appear racist is only helped by our reluctance to call BS. While they come out with this stuff we stand by and do the right thing by giving them the benefit of the doubt, but really they are just calling us for suckers. They aren’t engaged in a genuine discussion.

We help enable this idiocy by taking part, arguing points with them that they will never agree with, on a characteristic of the issue they don’t even care about, all because we are too polite to call them out. I stopped taking part in these forums ages ago, because these people are so often vicious and nasty and leave a sour taste in my mouth, expect plenty of abuse and slathering over this comment.

It’s a game, where we all have to pretend they aren’t lying, but both sides know they are and the best way to end a game is to call it for what it is.

BLA says:

11:31pm | 22/06/11

100% agree! I see refugees who look very well fed and groomed. How is that possible in extreme circumstances they claim they came from? And yes, a while ago there were articles about refugees visiting ‘dangerous’ places they came from as soon as they get permanent residency; then today about Africans regularly sending welfare payments they receive here to relatives in what ever dengerous and nonfunctional country in Africa (so banking seems to be working just fine, and relatves are obviously able to withdraw the money…).

marley says:

08:49am | 23/06/11

Okay, would someone please tell me why a person with money cannot be in genuine fear of persecution from his government for his political or religious views?  Were Jews who had money in 1930s Germany not still refugees?  Were Russian aristocrats trying to get out of Bolshevik Russia one step ahead of the execution squads not refugees?  How about Iranians fleeing the mullahs in the late 70s?  A lot of them had money too.

Many refugees are poor.  Some are not.  Money isn’t a determinant of refugee status.

marley says:

04:26pm | 22/06/11

Ah, well, I don’t know - the Japanese economy hasn’t really done so remarkably well over the last 15 years or so, and that’s not counting Fukishima.

Austin 3:16 says:

04:50pm | 22/06/11

Shh David’s been asleep since the late 80’s - don’t wake him.

David V. says:

06:05pm | 22/06/11

Now remember that “crimes against humanity” in WW2 weren’t any different from what Israel is doing now when it uses White Phosphorous on defenceless Palestinian children. Or the Allies bombing Dresden and Hiroshima.

The Japanese and Koreans at least value their ethnic identity- it’s a pity more nations don’t.

marley says:

10:42pm | 22/06/11

Well, David V. - the Koreans and the Japanese are actually ethnically the same - but don’t tell either of them that. 

As for most of the rest of the world, we’re all pretty much a mix of whoever happened to invade or pass by our homelands.  I think the only really pristine ethnic groups these days are probably hidden away in the Amazon.

Idiot Detector says:

04:25pm | 22/06/11

At last a truthful observation from somebody involved. Good on you Josie. As for most of the other dimwits on this site, perhaps we should second a few naval vessels and send them around the world picking up refugees to bring to Oz….buffoons

hot tub political machine says:

05:33pm | 23/06/11

Hi Josie, have a look at the Australian Association of Social Workers ethics statement - you’re in breach of it. Social workers are required to be honest about their policies, non-idenfitfying complaints are not sackable offences for breach of confidentiality - breaches of confidetiality are.

Its important social workers are upfront and truthful when discussing policy

Roderick Schneider says:

05:23pm | 22/06/11

Exactly the sort of disappointing generalisation that makes things worse. Don’t look now KarinEy, but there goes the point.

marley says:

08:39pm | 22/06/11

I have no idea what you’re talking about.  Overstays, about 45 to 50,000.  That’s a fact.

Fingerprints - that was a suggestion for tracking asylum seekers should we decide to release them into the community pending finalization of their claims.  It had nothing to do with overstayers.

By the way, you overrate Australia’s attractions as a destination. It has never been high on the list for asylum seekers, and I doubt that’s going to change. It’s too bloody far away and too hard to get to, when you can hike over to Europe so much more easily.

And the only reason it costs us a fortune tending to the smugglers’ cargo is because we have chosen the most expensive way of dealing with them, instead of letting them loose to fend for themselves.

Jack Richards says:

06:54pm | 22/06/11

There was nothing shameful about the White Australia policy. It was the best idea any country has ever produced. The shameful thing was that our gutless politicians abolished it without ever consulting the electorate.

Perhaps you should consider the ideas of President Wilson’s 14 points that ended the First World War, and yet weren’t implemented, and are the cause of much of the conflict still going on in this world today. The most salient of which was that each ethnic group that shares a common language and a common culture must have its own nation.

Multiculturalism and the importation of foreigners of a different colour, religion and world outlook can only lead to the destruction of the host country.

I’ll bet you cannot name a single successful multi-cultural country - but I bet I can name half a dozen that have been monumental and bloody failures.

You are a fool and your pseudo piety and faux intellectualism makes me sick.

marley says:

08:54pm | 22/06/11

@Jack Richards - successful multicultural countries?  The US, Canada, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, oh, and of course, the most mongrel country of all, the UK.

RyaN says:

09:46pm | 22/06/11

I don’t think its working, you have to be more subtle when you go fishing.

marley says:

08:27pm | 22/06/11

We take around 170,000 immigrants a year.  Refugees - 14,000.  I don’t call that significant, myself.

BLA says:

11:17pm | 22/06/11

Marley, 14,000, if they are selected from the illegal boat arrivals, are mostly single Middle Eastern males. As soon as they get permanent residency, the numerous family members follow, treated preferntially once again. So, 14,000 quickly becomes 50,000-60,000… get the picture?

michael says:

12:34am | 23/06/11

To BLA:

And then how many of them males get white people pregnant once they get here, which turns 50-60,000 to millions - especially as we encourage it with the baby bonus. One-day, a brown and half-muslim person has a higher probability of becoming Prime Minister as a result. Then they will let them ALL in.

Fifty years ago every Australian (i dont know if we counted the black ones then, at least not in WA) we each had 2km squared each. Now it is about 1.6km!

OMG, i was trying to be satirical but i cant tell the differene between what i wrote and what many commentors are saying here.

marley says:

10:16am | 23/06/11

@BLA - over half the 14,000 are selected out of the camps - families, women at risk, and so forth.  The boats, even in the last couple of years, have accounted for maybe 5 or 6000.  And a fair number of them have been Tamils, not “middle eastern males.”  So, if yeah, I get the picture, and its insignificant.

Roderick Schneider says:

02:46pm | 30/06/11

Thanks for the comment Six Months.

You can ignore that stanza if you like. While that part is partisan, it was also intended to draw attention to the fact that there are more facets to the issue, which require multiple solutions.

John says:

09:59pm | 22/06/11

Racism and Racist terms are not legitimate anyway, they were created by radical marxist Leon Trotsky to foment the class war.
It’s a false problem. It’s purpose is the empowerment of minority’s, create the oppressed minority class and then create the oppressor class “white christian westerns” and then to culturally seed this false assertion into western society. The result of this is what we call liberals, leftists who are critical of western people, christianity and western history. The perfect political lemming. Marxism preaches universalism Utopian idea’s, it doesn’t preach realist reality, because it conflicts with their assertions of reality. Marxism ideals are false, the party knows it, but the party wants power, and use’s lies to remain and gain power.

Racist name calling has no substance, in reality it gives away that your the real racist. So the racist is basically the one who uses the term racist. It express’s feelings of resentment to another race, which is racism.

michael says:

12:24am | 23/06/11

So if im a whit anglo saxon (disclosure: i am) and i accuse another white anglo saxon of racism because of their attitude to brown people, it means im a racist. and does it therefore mean i actually hate white anglo saxons?

Now i get it! Thank you, i can stop my therapy now! I just have to stop hating white australians with attitudes towards brown people, and i won’t be racist.

josh says:

09:57am | 23/06/11

Obviously the people of Western Sydney have these new arrivals flood their towns. No one asked the residents of Blacktown how they felt about their home becoming the new capital of South Sudan.

If you live in Western Sydney you feel first hand the animosity immigrants have towards Australians, whilst inner city trendies continue with this idea of a melting pot utopia, it’s absurd.

marley says:

08:52am | 23/06/11

First, many refugees are not Muslim.  Tamils, for example, aren’t Muslim.  Secondly, most Muslims in Australia didn’t come here as refugees but as skilled migrants or members of the family class.  Rather a lot of them were born here.  And if we’re going to send intolerant people back, there’s rather a lot of people on this thread who should be packing their bags.

Drew(Darlinghurst) says:

03:37pm | 23/06/11

@ James
Malcolm Fraser was the only good thing going for the Liberal Party…But even he left.

The Liberal Party is full of right wing zealots…get out while you can.

Oh, and stop listening to Alan Jones, it will rot your brain

Have a Nice Day

melle says:

04:14pm | 23/06/11

Yes, even Malcolm Fraser left -  tearfully, lip trembling.  A lot like Kevin Rudd.  Pathetic.

Bony Tony says:

04:55pm | 23/06/11

No. “Pathetic” is a PM losing his own seat because he was too arrogant to leave. Or is that “humiliating”. I can never tell. 

Fred of Queensland says:

02:57pm | 24/06/11

Denying the legal fact that seeking asylum is legal in Australia does not make you a racist, merely an uninformed or wilfully ignorant young man.
Does your “hard line” include exporting to another country and indefinitely detaining asylum seekers? If so, you are willing to break the law and treat human beings inhumanely.