# Border Security Rudd Weak



## Garpal Gumnut (28 October 2009)

I am very distressed by the number of illegals sailing south from the Middle and Far East to gatecrash our border security.

Compared to when John Howard was PM , this bloke Rudd is an absolute joke.

The Labor Party need to have a good long think about whether he is the person to lead Australia in a changing dangerous world.

Rudd is now trusting the Indonesians of all people to be our saviour.

In two or three elections or coups they could easily have a mad Islamist at their head.

Labor , to continue for two or three terms need to harden up on our northern security.

gg


----------



## noco (28 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am very distressed by the number of illegals sailing south from the Middle and Far East to gatecrash our border security.
> 
> Compared to when John Howard was PM , this bloke Rudd is an absolute joke.
> 
> ...




Yeah, good one GG. Rudd's really co#*ed up on this one big time. How is going to talk his way out of this one? Probably with his usual lies, spin and empty rhetoric I guess!!!


----------



## Fishbulb (28 October 2009)

Boat people eh? Well guess what? More illegals arrive by plane here than by boat. A lot more. The only reason the boats make the news is that the media knows it'll stir up the redneck contingent and sell more advertising in the process.


----------



## finnsk (28 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Boat people eh? Well guess what? More illegals arrive by plane here than by boat.



How is this possible you need a visa to get on the plane?


----------



## Fishbulb (28 October 2009)

finnsk said:


> How is this possible you need a visa to get on the plane?




There's an article on News dot com which I read a few days ago. 

Some guy posted that same article in this thread after my response here, and then for whatever reason moved into the other boat people thread. Check it out here http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26256902-421,00.html


----------



## The Once-ler (28 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Boat people eh? Well guess what? More illegals arrive by plane here than by boat. A lot more. The only reason the boats make the news is that the media knows it'll stir up the redneck contingent and sell more advertising in the process.





Boat people are a threat because it's just the start of a trickle that could turn into a flood. If you opened up our borders there could be millions turn up. Puting them into detention is cruel, but there has to be a deterent. It would be great if all 6.5 billion in the world could live how we do, but it's not possible.

Overpopulation is the greatest threat in the future. We are told that people start having less kids when they achieve a certain level of wealth. But in Africa, and parts of the middle east and asia, they can never achieve this level of wealth as there are too many. In some of these places population growth is actually accelerating. 

These masses in developing countries need to sort out their own problems, stay where they are and fix things in their own land rathjer than trying to go elsewhere, and wake up to themselves and start containing their breeding. Land anywhere only has a certain carrying capacity. In most parts of the world that capacity has been well and truely exceeded.


----------



## Fishbulb (28 October 2009)

The Once-ler said:


> Boat people are a threat because it's just the start of a trickle that could turn into a flood. If you opened up our borders there could be millions turn up. Puting them into detention is cruel, but there has to be a deterent. It would be great if all 6.5 billion in the world could live how we do, but it's not possible.
> 
> Overpopulation is the greatest threat in the future. We are told that people start having less kids when they achieve a certain level of wealth. But in Africa, and parts of the middle east and asia, they can never achieve this level of wealth as there are too many. In some of these places population growth is actually accelerating.
> 
> These masses in developing countries need to sort out their own problems, stay where they are and fix things in their own land rathjer than trying to go elsewhere, and wake up to themselves and start containing their breeding. Land anywhere only has a certain carrying capacity. In most parts of the world that capacity has been well and truely exceeded.




I'm sorry, and no offence, but this is just fear and loathing. I do agree however, that they really should try to sort out the mess in their own country.  

Overpopulation is a crock, and on the same level as man made Global Warming, and whatever the case, doesn't belong in a thread about boat people.


----------



## The Once-ler (28 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Overpopulation is a crock, and on the same level as man made Global Warming, and whatever the case, doesn't belong in a thread about boat people.





You will feel very silly in the decades ahead thinking what you do now.

Africa is currently populated by a billion people who can't feed themselves now without relying on grain imports from western nations, and especially US corn. Estimates put Africa at doubling it's population in just another 50 years. We are told that 'not to worry', because as the third world and developing nations becomes wealthy, they reduce their breeding. Hint?? They aren't going to get wealthy, as they have blown past the carrying capacity of the land they live on. They can't possibly ever be wealthy because there is simply too many.

So the west exports grain and other food to these places, But the more food they get, the more they breed. Mechanising agriculture is another way that populations reduce their growth rates so we should be giving them tractors. But then, since 50% are farmers, by mechanising agriculture, 47% will be unemployed, so that won't work. We should be giving them contraceptives, not food. We should set up free vasectomy clinics. We should pay them to go.

As on the other thread, everyone is talking about wars and genocide and freedom fighters. For goodness sake, the reason they are all fighting and killing each other in these places is because these places have too many people. The land can't sustain this many humans. That should be simple enough to see.

We have to look after ourselves. We can't fix any problem by letting milllions in, as 75 million are being added every year. Africa, and a few other places will be hell on earth in another few decades. Refugees will flood into Europe as they will be able to walk there. Australia and New Zealand will be the only place to live thanks to our ocean border.


----------



## Julia (28 October 2009)

finnsk said:


> How is this possible you need a visa to get on the plane?



I don't know for sure, but I'd guess they come on a tourist or some other temporary visa, and simply outstay the time allowed per that visa, in the meantime lodging a claim for protection.


----------



## Happy (28 October 2009)

Not funny if you look from perspective of person waiting for up to 10 years for Housing Commission accommodation and up to 12 years for dental service, when queue jumpers jump queue in Australia too!


----------



## awg (28 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am very distressed by the number of illegals sailing south from the Middle and Far East to gatecrash our border security.
> 
> Compared to when John Howard was PM , this bloke Rudd is an absolute joke.
> 
> ...




If he was being hypothetically pragmatic,( to use a Ruddist phrase),
might it not work out cheaper and more efficient to just pay the Indonesians, ( insofar as possible) to intercept as many as they can?

That would act as a dis-incentive, and probably be cheaper, on a per capita basis, to the Aust taxpayer.

I make no comment about the ethical questions, and obviously no one wants to come out and say it, but if any solution that was considered to be politically more popular, I'm sure it would be considered.

I also think that if a refugee makes it to Oz from Afganistan for instance, seems they would probably meet the UN refugee status, as it is active war zone, so that makes it very hard to know what to do, from a political perspective, if you want to limit as far as possible increased refugees.

As evidenced by the Coalitions lack of any stated plan.


----------



## noco (28 October 2009)

Wilson Tuckey may be a bit eccentric at times, but he is spot on when he says perhaps one in a 100 just maybe a terrorist who has infiltrated with illegal immigrants.

I ask the question, how did those convicted terrorists who tried to blow up and kill army personal at the Hollingsworth Army Camp get into Australia. WHAT HAS GONE WRONG WITH OUR SECURITY?

I ask Mr. Rudd, please explain how they entered Australia.


----------



## WinnieBlues (28 October 2009)

noco said:


> Wilson Tuckey may be a bit eccentric at times, but he is spot on when he says perhaps one in a 100 just maybe a terrorist who has infiltrated with illegal immigrants.
> 
> I ask the question, how did those convicted terrorists who tried to blow up and kill army personal at the Hollingsworth Army Camp get into Australia. WHAT HAS GONE WRONG WITH OUR SECURITY?
> 
> I ask Mr. Rudd, please explain how they entered Australia.




Labor doesn't give a stuff...they get lots of votes from the ethnic demographic...they are on a sure winner...

Rudd's plan is to let many, many more people in.....he thinks to himself 'think of all the new labor voters i am letting in!!!!'

He is a joke and if he stays in power for too long will destroy this country from the inside out


----------



## robots (28 October 2009)

hello,

yeah top posts Fishbulb,

join your local refugee action group, plenty more should be allowed in

thankyou
doctor robots


----------



## boofhead (28 October 2009)

I don't want to attack anyone but what sources of information are people using? It seems to be headline responses.

I'm not sure why people on boats are targetted. Why not target them all?

I'm sure terrorists could easily come in on aircraft too. Marginalisation doesn't help. It encourages some people to more extreme methods of retribution.


----------



## Chris45 (28 October 2009)

awg said:


> might it not work out cheaper and more efficient to just pay the Indonesians, (insofar as possible) to intercept as many as they can?



According to  http://www.indo.ausaid.gov.au/



> Through AusAID, the Australian Government's overseas aid program in Indonesia will provide an estimated *A$452 million* (IDR 3.7 trillion) in Official Development Assistance (ODA) in 2009-10.
> 
> This assistance expands Australia's support in key sectors such as education, health, infrastructure, disaster management and water and sanitation. Australia is on track to meet its commitment to provide *A$2.5 billion* in development assistance to Indonesia over five years to 2012-13.
> 
> Indonesia is the largest single recipient of Australian development assistance.



Isn't it about time we started asking for something from them in return *without* having to pay them even more money?


----------



## Hyperion (28 October 2009)

noco said:


> Wilson Tuckey may be a bit eccentric at times, but he is spot on when he says perhaps one in a 100 just maybe a terrorist who has infiltrated with illegal immigrants.
> 
> I ask the question, how did those convicted terrorists who tried to blow up and kill army personal at the Hollingsworth Army Camp get into Australia. WHAT HAS GONE WRONG WITH OUR SECURITY?
> 
> I ask Mr. Rudd, please explain how they entered Australia.





Do you mean Holsworthy Army base??

I believe all 4 men were Australian citizens... they might have been born in Australia...

Also, they haven't been convicted of anything.  They have simply been ordered to stand trial and I believe they are all pleading not guilty.


----------



## awg (28 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> According to  http://www.indo.ausaid.gov.au/
> 
> 
> Isn't it about time we started asking for something from them in return *without* having to pay them even more money?




good point, I didnt realise it was so much.

probably some serious arm-twisting going on, diplomatically


----------



## MrBurns (28 October 2009)

I never quite understood why they pay some unwashed crim $15k to cram them into a leaky boat to come to Oz when they could go to the airport and land here for $1k, then just disappear into the crowd.

Guess I missed something.

And where do these peasants get $15k from in the first place ?


----------



## noirua (28 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am very distressed by the number of illegals sailing south from the Middle and Far East to gatecrash our border security.
> 
> Compared to when John Howard was PM , this bloke Rudd is an absolute joke.
> 
> ...




Increase taxes I say and smarten up border security.  An overall 1% tax rate (15% up to 16% etc.,) increase would allow funds to be available.


----------



## boofhead (28 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I never quite understood why they pay some unwashed crim $15k to cram them into a leaky boat to come to Oz when they could go to the airport and land here for $1k, then just disappear into the crowd.
> 
> Guess I missed something.
> 
> And where do these peasants get $15k from in the first place ?




Some get loans from the local crime gangs and have family members as collateral that will be staying behind.


----------



## doctorj (28 October 2009)

noirua said:


> Increase taxes I say and smarten up border security. An overall 1% tax rate (15% up to 16% etc.,) increase would allow funds to be available.



Isn't Australia already one of the highest taxed places going around?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I am very distressed by the number of illegals sailing south from the Middle and Far East to gatecrash our border security.
> 
> Compared to when John Howard was PM , this bloke Rudd is an absolute joke.
> 
> ...






noco said:


> Yeah, good one GG. Rudd's really co#*ed up on this one big time. How is going to talk his way out of this one? Probably with his usual lies, spin and empty rhetoric I guess!!!




Thanks noco, and that is the point of the thread.

Rudd is playing politics, trying to play both sides of the fence.

There is nothing to stop every man jack between here and bloody Baghdad from hopping into a boat and floating down to Christmas Is.

It is not inconceivable that many Indonesians might not want to chance their luck in a beanbag or basin, and just come on in.

At least at the airports there is proper screening, they can be turned about or in the worst case of thousands of them coming via air, the airports can be closed.

These economic migrants need to be stopped from just sailing in to our territorial waters. A thousand this year, ten thousand the next and then one hundred thousand, the year after.

Who knows?

gg


----------



## Julia (28 October 2009)

WinnieBlues said:


> Labor doesn't give a stuff...they get lots of votes from the ethnic demographic...they are on a sure winner...
> 
> Rudd's plan is to let many, many more people in.....he thinks to himself 'think of all the new labor voters i am letting in!!!!'



I think that's right.  Just a few nights ago on the 7.30 Report when asked about Ken Henry's pessimistic prediction that the Australian population would in x no. of years reach quite unsustainable (on environmental grounds) levels, Mr Rudd denied that this could be a problem.  He states that he's very much in favour of a big country/big population, and that his government was presently planning the appropriate infrastructure for this increased population.
Well, Mr Rudd, given that some of our capital cities are likely to run out of drinking water if we have another dry summer, and given also the increasing failure of our health system, maybe you could give that infrastructure planning a bit of a hurry up!

To me it sounded just like more of Rudd's search for increased personal aggrandisement:  i.e. he likes the notion of ruling over more people, especially if his plan to gradually take power from the States becomes a reality.  Given voter dissatisfaction with the State governments, it shouldn't be too difficult for him to implement this part of his strategy.



MrBurns said:


> I never quite understood why they pay some unwashed crim $15k to cram them into a leaky boat to come to Oz when they could go to the airport and land here for $1k, then just disappear into the crowd.
> 
> Guess I missed something.
> 
> And where do these peasants get $15k from in the first place ?



Mr Burns, perhaps the difference is that air travellers understand that they need to acquire a Visa to get into Australia, and that these are quite assidulously checked at the airports?  Don't you watch 'Border Security'?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 October 2009)

A mate in the Australian embassy in Jakarta tells me that everyone from Rudd down to the lowest functionary in DFAT is running about like headless chooks at present.

The Indonesians are going to play very hard ball with the Sri Lankan illegal migrants on one of our ships, the Oceanic Viking.

Lets hope that sense prevails and Rudd shows some balls for once.

gg


----------



## Tink (29 October 2009)

Julia said:


> I think that's right.  Just a few nights ago on the 7.30 Report when asked about Ken Henry's pessimistic prediction that the Australian population would in x no. of years reach quite unsustainable (on environmental grounds) levels, Mr Rudd denied that this could be a problem.  He states that he's very much in favour of a big country/big population, and that his government was presently planning the appropriate infrastructure for this increased population.?
> Well, Mr Rudd, given that some of our capital cities are likely to run out of drinking water if we have another dry summer, and given also the increasing failure of our health system, maybe you could give that infrastructure planning a bit of a hurry up!?




I agree Julia, he has to get things moving regarding infrastructure, but our last government did nothing about it either, so they are as bad as each other.

Apart from that, doesnt bother me about big populations. More people, more tax they pay which helps our country.

[/QUOTE]To me it sounded just like more of Rudd's search for increased personal aggrandisement:  i.e. he likes the notion of ruling over more people, especially if his plan to gradually take power from the States becomes a reality.  Given voter dissatisfaction with the State governments, it shouldn't be too difficult for him to implement this part of his strategy.?[/QUOTE]

I think state governments are a waste of money. If they can implement it, I would be all for it. 
One set of rules across the board.


----------



## The Once-ler (29 October 2009)

Tink said:


> Apart from that, doesnt bother me about big populations. More people, more tax they pay which helps our country.
> 
> .





I had no idea that big populations were good for economic wealth.

Just imagine then how well things must be in Indonesia 240 mil, Pakistan 170 mil, Bangladesh 160 mil, and Ethiopia 85 mil? Fill the place up then.


----------



## dbcok (29 October 2009)

Lets hope that sense prevails and Rudd shows some balls for once.

gg[/QUOTE]


----------



## dbcok (29 October 2009)

Lets hope that sense prevails and Rudd shows some balls for once.

gg[/QUOTE]

I don't think that Australia is ready for that-once would be once too often!


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 October 2009)

dbcok said:


> Lets hope that sense prevails and Rudd shows some balls for once.
> 
> gg



Public nudity is a crime.


----------



## Fishbulb (29 October 2009)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> yeah top posts Fishbulb,
> 
> ...





My sarcasm detector might be malfunctioning, because I can't tell if you're being sarcastic. So, for the moment, I'll assume that you're not 

So thanks.

It seems ridiculous to me that in a country like Australia, on the brink of massive social and economic change - along with the rest of the world, the like of which we've never seen before, is baulking over less than a handful of boat people. Talk about yer xenophobia. 

I've made the point already that staying in your country of origin and attempting to change it is better than running from it. But if that's not possible, then yes of course make a run for it. If Australia fell into the hands of a dictator somehow, I'm sure half the population would be in their runabouts heading to New Zealand. 

Complaining or being "distressed" about something, will get you nowhere. And on a forum like this, it just means that there's more of you that can "rabble rabble rabble" about it together. Get off yer arses and make a change if you really feel that something's a bad thing. Go into politics and stand as an independant - I'm sure half of you could've easily stood as a candidate for One Nation -  Or here's an idea; get a clue as to what's going on. Boat people V Plane people; guess who's got the greater numbers? If you're going to whinge about something, wouldn't it be better to get the facts, and then act accordingly? Of course it would, but well, you know......there's beer in the fridge and we don't want to miss the footy. Bazz is comin' over and we're firin' up the barbie. Nah....can't be bothered, I'll just make a jackass out of myself on a forum.


----------



## Chris45 (29 October 2009)

Tink said:


> Apart from that, doesn't bother me about big populations. More people, more tax they pay which helps our country.



Tink, that’s a very naive view. More people means more depressing concrete jungles, more pollution, more traffic congestion, more social tension and conflict, more crime, etc, etc. Our major cities are far too big as it is which is why so many are seeking “sea-changes” and an escape from the rat race.


----------



## Chris45 (29 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> It seems ridiculous to me that in a country like Australia, on the brink of massive social and economic change - along with the rest of the world, the like of which we've never seen before, is baulking over less than a handful of boat people. Talk about yer xenophobia.



I think what is getting up most people’s noses is the obvious fact that these people are arrogantly demanding the right to resettle here without going through the proper channels. They have been offered sanctuary in Indonesia but that’s not good enough for them. They are demanding immediate entry to the land of “milk and honey” where people throw money at them and give them beautiful houses so they and all of their relatives can establish their cozy ‘home away from home’. They destroy their documentation so we can’t check their backgrounds or character, so they could be seriously violent thugs and criminals for all we know. Are these really the sort of people you want flooding into our country? Do you really want us to let this lot in without question and then shout to the rest of the world to just “Come on down!”?



> I've made the point already that staying in your country of origin and attempting to change it is better than running from it. But if that's not possible, then yes of course make a run for it. If Australia fell into the hands of a dictator somehow, I'm sure half the population would be in their runabouts heading to New Zealand.



I’m sure most *genuine* Australians from *all* generations would be highly offended by that ridiculous statement. Sure, the “better life” seekers would be looking for a quick and easy exit, which is why they came here in the first place, but the ones who really appreciate what we have here would fight to the death to defend it, as has already been demonstrated in previous conflicts.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> I think what is getting up most people’s noses is the obvious fact that these people are arrogantly demanding the right to resettle here without going through the proper channels. They have been offered sanctuary in Indonesia but that’s not good enough for them. They are demanding immediate entry to the land of “milk and honey” where people throw money at them and give them beautiful houses so they and all of their relatives can establish their cozy ‘home away from home’. They destroy their documentation so we can’t check their backgrounds or character, so they could be seriously violent thugs and criminals for all we know. Are these really the sort of people you want flooding into our country? Do you really want us to let this lot in without question and then shout to the rest of the world to just “Come on down!”?




That Chris, is the way most Australians feel about these waves of boats encouraged by Rudd's slack attention to the security of our nation.

It wasn't that long ago that the Japs planned an invasion of Australia and the ancestors of these muppets who are welcoming these boats had a plan.

It was called the "Brisbane Line"

Protect the south, and let anywhere north of Brisbane go to the Japs.

Well let me tell you Mr.Rudd, do not mess with Queenslanders, NT or WA's security, or you will be tossed out at the next election. 

gg


----------



## Tink (30 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Tink, that’s a very naive view. More people means more depressing concrete jungles, more pollution, more traffic congestion, more social tension and conflict, more crime, etc, etc. Our major cities are far too big as it is which is why so many are seeking “sea-changes” and an escape from the rat race.




I dont see that as naive at all. Its fact, that more people in a country means economic growth and wealth.

As I said, infrastructure needs to be dealt with

I am a city girl - I like movement.


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 October 2009)

Tink said:


> I dont see that as naive at all. Its fact, that more people in a country means economic growth and wealth.
> 
> As I said, infrastructure needs to be dealt with
> 
> I am a city girl - I like movement.




Here is a brief story about "boat people" from England. Of course, you have every right to an opinion no matter how it is arrived at.

National Geographic; hand typed passage:

"In 1802, King Island's first surveyor, Lieutenant John Murray, looked over a wilderness with thousands of elephant seals lolling on beaches and forest smothering the land, and predicted the future. "Thus we take leave of this large and fine island where the benevolent hand of providence has fixed the chief necessities of life and the means to procure some of it's luxuries," he wrote with remarkable foresight about an island that wouldn't be settled for another 86 years.
Today the elephant seals are gone - hunted to extinction in just three years - and so is most of the forest,"


----------



## Happy (30 October 2009)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> yeah top posts Fishbulb,
> 
> ...





Good idea, allow as many in to the point that it will be much better at the place they are coming from!

Then the wave will go somewhere else.


----------



## Fishbulb (30 October 2009)

The Once-ler said:


> You will feel very silly in the decades ahead thinking what you do now.
> 
> Africa is currently populated by a billion people who can't feed themselves now without relying on grain imports from western nations, and especially US corn. Estimates put Africa at doubling it's population in just another 50 years. We are told that 'not to worry', because as the third world and developing nations becomes wealthy, they reduce their breeding. Hint?? They aren't going to get wealthy, as they have blown past the carrying capacity of the land they live on. They can't possibly ever be wealthy because there is simply too many.
> 
> ...





Aid is the problem, not the solution. And that is from the mouth of an African. If you want the source, it's easy enough to find. 

There's so much misinformation in the rest of this post, I'm overwhelmed as to where to start. 

Who are "they"? I mean, who are these aliens that plan on infesting our societies and bringing us to our knees? Why the fear and loathing? Help me out here, I just don't understand this sort of attitude.


----------



## Happy (30 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Aid is the problem, not the solution. And that is from the mouth of an African. If you want the source, it's easy enough to find.
> 
> There's so much misinformation in the rest of this post, I'm overwhelmed as to where to start.
> 
> Who are "they"? I mean, who are these aliens that plan on infesting our societies and *bringing us to our knees*? Why the fear and loathing? Help me out here, I just don't understand this sort of attitude.




Heard about water problems in Australia or waiting list in hospitals, almost continuous Red Allerts in some Emergency Departments, disintegrating roads, ...?

Why we have to fix everybody elses problems.

Every bus should only take so many passengers.

I know, we have it too good compared to those who have nothing.

But lets not forget that a lot of poor countries have beyond imagination rich elite that parasites their countries.


----------



## Chris45 (30 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Aid is the problem, not the solution. And that is from the mouth of an African. If you want the source, it's easy enough to find.



Aiding *refugees* is the problem, not the solution.

If these people are such valuable assets, surely the best place for them is back in their home countries where they can work toward building better societies for their own people.


----------



## The Once-ler (30 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Aid is the problem, not the solution. And that is from the mouth of an African. If you want the source, it's easy enough to find. .




I've no doubt that aid is the problem. That's pretty much what I have said in my post. I said we should be giving them contraceptives, not food. 

So if aid is the problem, what is your solution then?




Fishbulb said:


> There's so much misinformation in the rest of this post, I'm overwhelmed as to where to start.
> 
> Who are "they"? I mean, who are these aliens that plan on infesting our societies and bringing us to our knees? Why the fear and loathing? Help me out here, I just don't understand this sort of attitude.





What is the misinformation in the rest of what I said?
Tell me what is not correct. 

There are now a billion people in Africa. A continent similar to Australia with some wet areas, some dry areas, desert, savana, rainforest. Some good soil, but mostly poor soil. The place cannot feed itself now.

I was being very conservative saying Africa will have 2 billion in 50 years. Some figures put it at just 28 years. Africa had just 200 million 60 years ago.

Are you one of these people who believe in unlimited growth? Populations just getting bigger and bigger indefinately? There are too many ignorant people who don't have any idea of what's involved in growing food, the environmental limitations, water, energy. 

We must get used to turning a blind eye to what's happening in certain places in the world, and more importantly, what going to happen in a few decades. There's nothing we can do now. Nature will fix up what's happening, just like it always has.


----------



## Happy (30 October 2009)

> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/30/2728525.htm?section=justin
> CRIME CONCERN FOR MARGINALISED MIGRANTS
> 
> A refugee expert says young refugees and migrants who feel marginalised in Australian society are more likely to join gangs and turn to violence.
> ...





I wander if the same principle could not apply to non-immigrant youth we have already and are getting wasted, just because we are too busy to : *"move on to the next lot of new arrivals"*?

Everything our Government does is half-hearted:
"No child in poverty"
"No hospital waiting"
"No homeless"
"bla"
"bla"..........


----------



## Fishbulb (30 October 2009)

The Once-ler said:


> I've no doubt that aid is the problem. That's pretty much what I have said in my post. I said we should be giving them contraceptives, not food.
> 
> So if aid is the problem, what is your solution then?
> 
> ...





Once a population gets to critical growth, it destroys itself. End of overpopulation.

I don't believe in regulation of people - full stop. Except for the obvious; don't make me go through it.

"We" are not in charge of anything. The closest that anyone comes to being in a regulatory role on this planet is the corporatocracy. They call the shots, not your or I, not the government. Governments come and go, but our financial system remains. That must say something? If there's someone around to sell a product to, what does it matter who it is? Think about it.


----------



## The Once-ler (30 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Once a population gets to critical growth, it destroys itself. End of overpopulation.
> 
> .





Hmm. We seem to be agreeing now then. That's what's going to happen in Africa and a few other places in a few decades. We are better off just standing clear and letting nature do it's thing. No use letting tens of millions of refugees into this great land and stuffing us up too. 

But our discussion started when you said that overpopulation was a crock?
So is it or isn't it?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (30 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Aiding *refugees* is the problem, not the solution.
> 
> If these people are such valuable assets, surely the best place for them is back in their home countries where they can work toward building better societies for their own people.




I'd agree, their own countries need more professionals, labourers and artisans.

All they do over here is fester their discontent with "the other mob" they ran away from, or with us because we don't like their particular culture or religion.

Rudd needs some cement mixture to harden himself up.

He'll be a one term PM if any more come flooding into Australia.

gg


----------



## Fishbulb (30 October 2009)

The Once-ler said:


> Hmm. We seem to be agreeing now then. That's what's going to happen in Africa and a few other places in a few decades. We are better off just standing clear and letting nature do it's thing. No use letting tens of millions of refugees into this great land and stuffing us up too.
> 
> But our discussion started when you said that overpopulation was a crock?
> So is it or isn't it?




Yes it is. 

Because it will never happen. 

No one is letting "tens of millions of refugees" into Australia. Where do you get this information from?

And, you've conveniently not addressed any of my other points.


----------



## Julia (30 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> Because it will never happen.
> 
> ...



Can you clarify if you want unlimited inflow of people to Australia?
i.e. that anyone who desires to come here should be allowed to come, regardless of whether they can support themselves or not, regardless of what they may or may not have to offer in terms of education or skills?

And if so, do you want to place any limit on such arrivals, or are you happy for all refugees or people who just think Australia would be more of a cool place to live than their own country to arrive with no limitation on numbers?

Further, if so, how would you suggest we accommodate and care for all these unlimited numbers, particularly if they have no means of support, do not speak English, and are not interested in working or otherwise contributing to Australia?

How will all these services be paid for?


----------



## Fishbulb (31 October 2009)

Julia said:


> Can you clarify if you want unlimited inflow of people to Australia?
> i.e. that anyone who desires to come here should be allowed to come, regardless of whether they can support themselves or not, regardless of what they may or may not have to offer in terms of education or skills?
> 
> And if so, do you want to place any limit on such arrivals, or are you happy for all refugees or people who just think Australia would be more of a cool place to live than their own country to arrive with no limitation on numbers?
> ...




I'm not a politician. My wants and thoughts on the matter add up to nothing. 

I approach this from a human to human angle. And so, turning people away that have gone through what many of them go through, seems hard hearted to me. Seems as if we're more concerned with our cushy lives, hanging onto them, and a "just us and no more" attitude, than helping out. 

As for just opening the door and saying "Come on in boys" - that's not what I'm about either. I do, however, think that the very few folks that turn up on boats is nothing compared to the amount that turn up at airports and simply squat. 

Here's a thought; instead of being small-minded and petty about refugees, how about changing the system instead? What if we said, okay boat people, you can stay, but here's the way it goes down.

You MUST learn our language

You cannot be a welfare recipient as a matter of course.

You must re-train if you have no skillsets that are of use to us

Etc


----------



## MrBurns (31 October 2009)

I'm sick of all this multi cultural BS, be very selective about who you let in or there will be trouble.
Try to emmigrate to Japan, no hope they dont tolerate foreigners at all.


----------



## mellifuous (31 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I'm sick of all this multi cultural BS, be very selective about who you let in or there will be trouble.
> Try to emmigrate to Japan, no hope they dont tolerate foreigners at all.




Maybe nationalism might be dealt a death blow by multiculturalism.

http://www.multiculturalaustralia.edu.au/

Could multiculturalism be the work of those who wish to dominate the world?

Could it be that 'boat people' are really welcomed by those who rule?

Could it be that us 'ordinary citizens' really don't have the control over our government that we think we have?

Is our government no more than a hand puppet for the world's ruling elite?

Heck no, not possible, just another 'conspiracy theory'.


----------



## Fishbulb (31 October 2009)

It's too late to be concerned with issues like multi-culturalism. We have to deal with it. You may not like it, but it is happening.


----------



## mellifuous (31 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> It's too late to be concerned with issues like multi-culturalism. We have to deal with it. You may not like it, but it is happening.




I don't have a problem with multiculturalism at all - I just love indian food,
and thai, and mexican... can't handle that chinese stuff though.

Where would we be without multiculturalism?

Australia needed the whites to make australia what the original inhabitants couldn't, and multiculturalism will make australia what the whites couldn't.

Life has to go on.


----------



## Fishbulb (31 October 2009)

mellifuous said:


> I don't have a problem with multiculturalism at all - I just love indian food,
> and thai, and mexican... can't handle that chinese stuff though.
> 
> Where would we be without multiculturalism?
> ...




Agreed....

Except for the Chinese food bit


----------



## mellifuous (31 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Agreed....
> 
> Except for the Chinese food bit




haha... but, our views might diverge on the outcome of multiculturalism.

Sadly, the whole thing can't taken too serous.

This is one of those issues that has the potential to pit race against race, or religion against religion ...  and there will be fracture lines and there will be conflict - that's why I just love living in the country.

My nearest of four neighbors is a km away, and quite frankly I don't care where he/she comes from.

It certainly won't be a case of everyone walking hand-in-hand through paradise.

Have  a good one.


----------



## noco (31 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I'm sick of all this multi cultural BS, be very selective about who you let in or there will be trouble.
> Try to emmigrate to Japan, no hope they dont tolerate foreigners at all.




HEAR, HEAR Mr. Burns they are more trouble than they worth. The conflict of various religions around the world is the cause of many problems throughout the World and in Australia in the near future. Why do some religious fanatics try force their beliefs on the rest of the world. If you are not a Muslim, you are an Infidel and according some, you should be eliminated.

Pauline Hanson hit the nail on the head years ago and John Howard took up a lot of what she said.

I say put up the "FULL HOUSE SIGN", no more Muslims.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 October 2009)

While I do not agree with many of the above posters' sentiments, I do respect their concerns and believe that they are shared by a majority of Australians.

Rudd has unleashed a torrent of refugees on our shores by his wishy washy policies.

The people smugglers are like snakes and impossible to eliminate.

The only way to eliminate them is by an assertive no nonsense approach by the Australian Government to the defence of our northern approaches, thus destroying their trade.

Oh if the capital were not in Canberra, but in Darwin, how easier would not it be for the proper course of action to be adopted?

Muppet politicians and basket weavers in the south have no idea of the proximity of Indonesia, Papua and PNG to Australia.

gg


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 October 2009)

noco said:


> I say put up the "FULL HOUSE SIGN", no more Muslims.



What's with the religious bigotry pal. No more Christians, Buddhists or Hindus  too or does that mean you have to get out of the country?


----------



## MrBurns (31 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> What's with the religious bigotry pal. No more Christians, Buddhists or Hindus  too or does that mean you have to get out of the country?




You mean bigotry from from some elements of the Muslim faith ? Yes I agree it's terrible isnt it, they should leave.


----------



## MrBurns (31 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> What's with the religious bigotry pal. No more Christians, Buddhists or Hindus  too or does that mean you have to get out of the country?




No , I think what he means is no religions that don't tolerate the Western lifestyle and have a propensity for violence.


----------



## MrBurns (31 October 2009)

Ths is all just talk, nothing will change, They could blow up the Harbour Bridge and some toss pot would say "now we mustn't overreact"


----------



## Julia (31 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> I'm not a politician. My wants and thoughts on the matter add up to nothing.



Thanks for your response, Fishbulb.



> I approach this from a human to human angle. And so, turning people away that have gone through what many of them go through, seems hard hearted to me. Seems as if we're more concerned with our cushy lives, hanging onto them, and a "just us and no more" attitude, than helping out.



I know what you're saying here, and I largely agree.  I can't begin to imagine what some of these people have endured.
But I'm not comfortable with the idea that anyone from any background and in any endless numbers can just arrive here in the knowledge that we will accept and look after them.  You haven't said how you would control numbers.
e.g. let's just consider the current example with the people who are refusing to come off the customs boat.  Are they to be allowed to keep up this stand indefinitely?  With them taking up the use of the vessel, and Indonesia supplying them with food and water?   They have been offered processing by UNHCR in Indonesia.   If they are genuine, and know they will be assessed correctly as refugees, why are they not prepared to accept this?
So far they are attempting to dictate to two governments what will happen, and I find that completely unacceptable. Suspect most Australians will feel similarly.

The government, to their credit, seem determined that they will not allow them to disembark on the mainland.  That would be to set an alarming precedent for future asylum seekers.

(Btw, I was wrong earlier when I said I thought the rescue took place in international waters.  According to today's "Australian", it was in fact in Indonesian waters, and the Australian customs boat was simply closer at the time.)
So the suggestion that they should disembark and be interviewed etc in Indonesia seems logical. 



> As for just opening the door and saying "Come on in boys" - that's not what I'm about either. I do, however, think that the very few folks that turn up on boats is nothing compared to the amount that turn up at airports and simply squat.



You're quite right about air travellers, but to talk about "the very few folks that turn up on boats" is a bit simplistic.  The flow of these boats is increasing exponentially, and if they are simply welcomed in, then obviously the flow will become a flood.  Is that OK with you?


> Here's a thought; instead of being small-minded and petty about refugees, how about changing the system instead? What if we said, okay boat people, you can stay, but here's the way it goes down.
> 
> You MUST learn our language
> 
> ...



OK, good suggestions.  But let's say a bunch of people arrive and are admitted into the country.  No welfare.  They have no money.  How do they exist?   What happens if they refuse to learn English or fail in any re-training?
What do you do then?
Where are these thousands of people going to be housed while they are fulfilling your above conditions?
What about healthcare?   Are they going to be eligible for Medicare?


----------



## mellifuous (31 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Ths is all just talk, nothing will change, They could blow up the Harbour Bridge and some toss pot would say "now we mustn't overreact"




Australia is an enemy of its thinking, and a casualty of its benevolence.

I think that if our land was barren, or sinking, I couldn't think of one Asian country that would take our people - come to think of it, we'd struggle to find more soil to replant even in 'western' countries.

What we call 'racism' in Australia is mild compared to the racism that exists against us in Asia. In Australia, Australians  are oppressed by draconian racial anti-discrimination laws -  In order for multiculturalism to be successful, then such laws are necessary  -  We have to be nice to each other.

When I look at the tsunami that hit Thailand, the Thai exerted very little of their own resources (money / manpower), neither did Indon.  Big noting Aussie (and others) did this, did that.

I note that India is a standout for solving its own problems wrt the tsunami.

This last earthquake in Indon and tsunami in Samoa saw big noting Aussie go out in their big military aircraft and well trained personal  to solve the pacific's problems.   

Maybe I'm wrong, but I heard mumblings of having 500 specialists ready for pacific  emergencies - we have our BIG transport plane/s (?) - we have the hospitals - Australia has placed itself as Asia's 'Triage Center'.

From Keating, who seems to have made a personal fortune of our doing deals up in and around Indon, to Rudd, successive governments have given billions and billions of aussie dollars to those cruds in Indon, and yet, the problem of 'boat people' goes on.

These clowns don't come in seaworthy and modern speed boats, they come in heaps of crap that JUST make it to our waters and then beg our indulgences, in a way no different to a 'cripple' laying prostrate on a tourist street in Thailand - the 'soft touch' pity them. 

Those who see the reality steel themselves to walk past, because, yes, there are real beggars, but most are not.  It's the most that are not that cause harm to the few who are.

I'd say that the 'networks' up in Indon and around Asia are well know to the police and authorities in those countries, and a few BIG bucks here and there would cause them to turn a blind eye.   

Idon and other Asian countries can't be coerced into supporting Australia's immigration policy by any amount of money, because I'll bet that secretly they too lay in envy of this 'rich' country to the south - with all the land and resources, and yet such a small population.

Again, look to the money, materials, and professionals , rushed to aid Indon and any other Asian country in crisis, and  every time we do it we look like the smart-ar&es of the Pacific.

We think we're being  benevolent but I'd reckon it's not seen that way from an Asian prospective - we've just seen as a soft touch.  There is no quid-pro-quo, no support for us in our hour of need, just an expectation that Australia will be there  in their respective hours of need, even without a call.

We shouldn't be surprised they come - they're helped all the way, and  somehow they've smelt 'Labor' is in power.


----------



## Chris45 (31 October 2009)

*Re. #61:* Very good questions Julia! I do wish all of these ‘bleeding hearts’ would think more carefully through the ramifications of their current attitudes.

I’m all in favour of a controlled and orderly immigration and refugee program. Where I live now I’m surrounded by immigrants including Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Poms and other Europeans ... and I’m even living right next to a family of Kiwis! 

As far as I know, they have all come in through the ‘front door’ and we all coexist harmoniously.


----------



## Fishbulb (31 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> *Re. #61:* Very good questions Julia! I do wish all of these ‘bleeding hearts’ would think more carefully through the ramifications of their current attitudes.




Quiet you


----------



## Fishbulb (31 October 2009)

Julia said:


> Thanks for your response, Fishbulb.
> 
> 
> I know what you're saying here, and I largely agree.  I can't begin to imagine what some of these people have endured.
> ...





As I said, I am not a politician. Neither are you I presume. 

As for going through your questions point by point? Some other time. 

But I will say this - on a forum like this, it's a shotgun approach. There's not enough room here - even if I were inclined - to write a detailed paper as to what Fishbulb recommends to the Govt in its handling of border security. 

Just quickly though, I didn't mean "no welfare" as a blanket statement. I meant that welfare should be cut off after whatever period would be considered appropriate. 

My approach to this argument is to put up the other side to all those doing the whingeing and moaning. You'd probably be very surprised to find out who I vote for most of the time. Thing is, these issues are divisive, and that leads into this; our population does not see things the same. Your view is not superior, neither is mine. They're just viewpoints, and in the end, totally meaningless. The country will evolve as it will. As it was voted for and according to the people doing all the decision making.


----------



## Chris45 (31 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> My approach to this argument is to put up the other side to all those doing the whingeing and moaning. You'd probably be very surprised to find out who I vote for most of the time. Thing is, these issues are divisive, and that leads into this; our population does not see things the same. Your view is not superior, neither is mine. They're just viewpoints, and in the end, totally meaningless. The country will evolve as it will. As it was voted for and according to the people doing all the decision making.



I think you underestimate the power of your posts. ASF is a popular forum and most of the people who read the posts here are intelligent logical thinkers who can vote in our elections. I’m sure some of them will read one post and think, “Hmmm, that’s a good point, I didn’t think of that” and then they will read another and think, “Oh, what a load of rubbish”, etc.

Remember that sometimes it only takes a relatively small number of swinging voters to change their minds on an issue to bring about a change in government and possibly a new direction for a nation. So, Fishbulb, please keep posting. You’re a great asset to our side! :


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 October 2009)

My intent in starting this thread was to point out the floodgate theory.

The more easy a passive entry exists via sea, over which we presently have little control, the more exponential the possibility is of an increase in the volume of illegal entry to this country via that route.

Our present government seems to be hostage to a view that ignores the security of our borders, and the views of a majority of voters.

Whether other countries take more or less migrants, whether more illegals come through airports bothers me not one iota.

We are a western nation at the bottom of the southern hemisphere who manage our wealth appropriately for our population.

There is an understandable fear that we will be flooded by unwanted migrants from further north of us, who envy our prosperity and way of life, but may not respect it when they arrive. 

gg


----------



## noco (31 October 2009)

MrBurns said:


> No , I think what he means is no religions that don't tolerate the Western lifestyle and have a propensity for violence.




Yes, you are correct Mr. Burns. If you look at many of the conflicts around the world, religion seems to be in the back ground.

Ireland is a good example with the trouble that went on for years between the Catholcs and the Protestants. My wife and I were in Ireland in 2006 and had a rock thrown through the bus window. It's still going on in a small way.

Look at Israel and Palestine, India and Pakistan, the war that broke out in  Yougaslavia, Turkey and Northern Iraq, the  Afghanistan conflict, Korea  just to name a few. All had religious contentions.

We have something like 500,000 Muslims currently living in Australia. Their children are eduacted in Muslim schools and are brain washed 5 times a day with the Koran. They say they are peace loving people,but what if 1% of those children become fanatics in the next generation, can anyone  guarantee we will have peaceful continuity in our society here in Australia?

 We already have 3 or 4 Mulims convicted of trying to harm  Australian soldiers at the Hollsworthy Army Base. Contrary to what I believed earlier, I have been informed, those convicted were born in Australia and were Australian citizens.

We should all start to think of what can happen in the next 20 years or sooner. A matter which I consider is far more important than Climate Change.


----------



## Julia (31 October 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> As I said, I am not a politician. Neither are you I presume.



It's nothing to do with being or not being a politician.
You have expressed a view.  I asked you to further expand on it, because to me it seemed totally simplistic and accusatory.



> As for going through your questions point by point? Some other time.



OK.  Will accept that you have decided to cop out of the argument.
Pity.



> But I will say this - on a forum like this, it's a shotgun approach. There's not enough room here - even if I were inclined - to write a detailed paper as to what Fishbulb recommends to the Govt in its handling of border security.



No one was asking you for a dissertation.  Just simply to justify your previously expressed view with some practical answers.  You have declined to do this, so presumably you are OK with criticising others' comments, but not OK with backing up your own views  with reasons for them



> My approach to this argument is to put up the other side to all those doing the whingeing and moaning.



Once again, we have the pejorative language "whingeing and moaning", rather than simply addressing the argument.
Others could equally suggest that you are 'whingeing and moaning" about anyone who holds a contrary view to yourself.


----------



## overule (31 October 2009)

It's has been a problem for a long time.


----------



## Fishbulb (1 November 2009)

Julia said:


> It's nothing to do with being or not being a politician.
> You have expressed a view.  I asked you to further expand on it, because to me it seemed totally simplistic and accusatory.
> 
> 
> ...





See it how you like, it's fine with me. As I said, these forums are never going to be detailed policy responses about any matter at all. 

You were after a dissertation. Practical answers? I think I made it clear I'm not in politics and don't understand the complexity of the issue in its entirety; not privvy to that information. I read the news, that's about it. If I did go through and make a long and dreary list of "practical answers" it'd just be some guy on a forum being self important. Know what I mean? I'm more of an ethicist than a policy maker. 

Finally, I don't think I criticised anyone's view directly. I simply presented mine and people responded. Which is good.


----------



## Fishbulb (1 November 2009)

Apparantly some of the Sea Viking "refugees" have been living in Indonesia for five years or so. 

It'd be a nightmare determing who's genuine and who isn't. And further to that, it would make it even tougher on the genuine refugee.


----------



## Fishbulb (2 November 2009)

Chris45 said:


> I think you underestimate the power of your posts. ASF is a popular forum and most of the people who read the posts here are intelligent logical thinkers who can vote in our elections. I’m sure some of them will read one post and think, “Hmmm, that’s a good point, I didn’t think of that” and then they will read another and think, “Oh, what a load of rubbish”, etc.
> 
> Remember that sometimes it only takes a relatively small number of swinging voters to change their minds on an issue to bring about a change in government and possibly a new direction for a nation. So, Fishbulb, please keep posting. You’re a great asset to our side! :




You think these forums have any effect on anyone? Not me. 

We just post on stuff we're annoyed with or happy with. As long as we don't use words that tend to be flagged by echelon (if you're paranoid) we're unnoticed mostly, and what we say goes into the ether and is forgotten. 

But thanks for the welcoming words anyway.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 November 2009)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26344992-421,00.html



> AUSTRALIA will likely take the vast bulk of Sri Lankan asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking that are deemed to be refugees, Immigration Minister Chris Evans  says.
> 
> "Those that have been found to be refugees will be offered resettlement under the normal UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council) guidelines,'' Senator Evans said.




I guess this will now open the flood gates for every person seeking a better future to just get onto the right tide, wait for the wind and head south for the coast of Australia, scuttling their ship within sight of an Australian vessel.

For a smart person Mr.Rudd sure makes some dreadful decisions.

gg


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I guess this will now open the flood gates for every person seeking a better future to just get onto the right tide, wait for the wind and head south for the coast of Australia, scuttling their ship within sight of an Australian vessel.
> 
> For a smart person Mr.Rudd sure makes some dreadful decisions.
> 
> gg



Give them golfing clubs and send them to Victoria.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26344992-421,00.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I made a similar observation in a group of friends today, gg, and was challenged to say how I would actually manage the situation.
It's a good point.
Easy for us to be critical (and resentful) but even if they did scuttle their boat, surely we could not have avoided rescuing them?

So then they take up residence on the Australian Customs vessel and refuse to get off.  What are the options?  Dock the ship and herd them off at gunpoint to a detention centre?  What happens if they decide on a dramatic gesture of jumping into the sea on the way?  We rescue them all over again?
I doubt many politicians could stomach the international headlines this would cause, not to mention the outcry within Australia from the Left.

I was told today that it's against international law to take them back to their home country without assessing their claim to be refugees, so that would seem to rule out Barnaby Joyce's suggestion.

I've been strongly against the Rudd government's apparent pandering to the blackmail of these people, but when it comes to the point, and to be fair, I'm not sure there have been too many options which would have been acceptable from a political and humanitarian point of view.

Would be interested in any suggestions as to actual alternative scenarios the government could be employing.


----------



## Julia (13 November 2009)

There was an interesting revelation today from Alexander Downer.
He said the previous government used to intercept intending boat arrivals and tow them back into international waters, giving them sufficient food and water for a few days.  They purposely never made this practice public (for obvious reasons).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 November 2009)

Julia said:


> I made a similar observation in a group of friends today, gg, and was challenged to say how I would actually manage the situation.
> It's a good point.
> Easy for us to be critical (and resentful) but even if they did scuttle their boat, surely we could not have avoided rescuing them?
> 
> ...




Sometimes one needs to be hard, to protect one's interests.

At least one criminal is on this boat, how many others?

They should have been forcibly unloaded in to the care of the Indonesians. If some of them jump in to the sea, that is their choice.

Australia is a laughing stock and believe me at this very moment people smugglers and criminals are planning for more boats to start out.

Australia has lost face through Rudd's weakness.

gg


----------



## Julia (13 November 2009)

I don't disagree with you, gg.  But I doubt too many politicians would be prepared to withstand the outcry from the Left if they were to do what you suggest.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 November 2009)

Julia said:


> I don't disagree with you, gg.  But I doubt too many politicians would be prepared to withstand the outcry from the Left if they were to do what you suggest.




The problem may not be with the left , but with a large swing to the right , and Rudd may go the way of Keating after a one election win.

Personally I would welcome it. 

He has his whole party completely neutered and is running a one man show.

Many Labor folk do not agree with his lack of back bone over our Northern defence.

He's worried about the Greens and the basket weavers but he may get hammered from the right.

gg


----------



## -Bevo- (13 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26344992-421,00.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Some major Rudd bashing going on in the readers comments of that story GG, people starting to wake up about the government they elected, even my parents who only ever vote labour are shaking there heads.


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> You think these forums have any effect on anyone? Not me.
> 
> We just post on stuff we're annoyed with or happy with. As long as we don't use words that tend to be flagged by echelon (if you're paranoid) we're unnoticed mostly, and what we say goes into the ether and is forgotten.
> 
> But thanks for the welcoming words anyway.




I agree with you Fishbulb. Most of what we say on these threads is either unread or ignored, The only exceptions are when you strike a kindred spirit or someone who thinks they are much smarter than you and try to put you down.

We shouldn't kid ourselves that we are influencing anyone. As I mentioned on another thread, reams have been posted by the sceptics and the believers on global warming with no conversions to my knowledge.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 November 2009)

Is ths "spin" from Mr.rudd or just plain lying?




> Asked on Fairfax Radio if the asylum seekers got special treatment, he said: ''Absolutely not. This is consistent with the overall approach we adopt to processing of individuals at any centre around the world.''
> 
> In addition to rapid resettlement, the Sri Lankans will receive English lessons, around-the-clock access to Australian officials and counsellors, and free phone calls to their family at home.





Lets read it again from the Sydney Morning Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/our-newest-australians-leave-the-boat-20091113-iepi.html

He says no deal.

But yet........

I realise one cannot believe politicians but lies can be too blatant.






> Asked on Fairfax Radio if the asylum seekers got special treatment, he said: ''Absolutely not. This is consistent with the overall approach we adopt to processing of individuals at any centre around the world.''
> 
> In addition to rapid resettlement, the Sri Lankans will receive English lessons, around-the-clock access to Australian officials and counsellors, and free phone calls to their family at home.





Perhaps all refugees get this, or do they ?



gg


----------



## Tink (14 November 2009)

Thats exactly right Julia, it is against International Law.

The media is having a field day with this.

Looks like some of them have family in Sydney and have asked if they can take the children


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My intent in starting this thread was to point out the floodgate theory.
> 
> The more easy a passive entry exists via sea, over which we presently have little control, the more exponential the possibility is of an increase in the volume of illegal entry to this country via that route




I wondered at the time what your intent was, considering we already had a duplicate thread on "Boat People" started 10 days earlier.


----------



## Tink (14 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> I wondered at the time what your intent was, considering we already had a duplicate thread on "Boat People" started 10 days earlier.




You got to have Rudd Weak on the heading - sheesh

Doesnt have the same effect 

Political football


----------



## Julia (14 November 2009)

Tink said:


> You got to have Rudd Weak on the heading - sheesh
> 
> Doesnt have the same effect
> 
> Political football



Tink, perhaps I'm being a bit slow, but can you explain this post.  I have no idea what you are meaning.  Ditto remark above about family in Sydney, what is that about?

The following could reasonably go on any of several threads at present.
It's a very amusing commentary by "Counterpoint" satirist Patrick Cook about some current events.  Well worth a listen.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2737377.htm


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2009)

Julia said:


> The following could reasonably go on any of several threads at present.
> It's a very amusing commentary by "Counterpoint" satirist Patrick Cook about some current events.  Well worth a listen.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2009/2737377.htm




Excellent Julia. Satire cuts through the pompous bulls-sh*t propaganda every time.


----------



## bigdog (15 November 2009)

Rudd the Dud the leader of a rabble!!

Can not control the borders and should we trust him running the country?


----------



## bloomy88 (15 November 2009)

bigdog said:


> Rudd the Dud the leader of a rabble!!
> 
> Can not control the borders and should we trust him running the country?




Probably not I would have thought


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 November 2009)

How many more boats are coming across the Indian Ocean since Rudd capitulated to a bloke called "Alex"?

What a response from the Prime Minister of Australia.

While he's stuffing about in Singapore and Copenhagen, the boats and people smugglers are getting in to top gear.

gg


----------



## Calliope (16 November 2009)

I love it. The President of Indonesia has given Rudd the finger. While Rudd claimed he was having meetings with him in Singapore, Bambang Yudhonono was doing his best to avoid the obnoxious p***k. The Indonesian solution has gone pear shaped. Bambang Yudhonono has even cancelled his proposed visit to Australia.

It's going to be a long night for Rudd's spin doctors.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> I love it. The President of Indonesia has given Rudd the finger. While Rudd claimed he was having meetings with him in Singapore, Bambang Yudhonono was doing his best to avoid the obnoxious p***k. The Indonesian solution has gone pear shaped. Bambang Yudhonono has even cancelled his proposed visit to Australia.
> 
> It's going to be a long night for Rudd's spin doctors.



Yeah I saw that on the news. The Bambang cold handshake and brush-off, the dirty looks, the sour face. All Kev could do was smile.


----------



## Mofra (17 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> How many more boats are coming across the Indian Ocean since Rudd capitulated to a bloke called "Alex"?
> 
> What a response from the Prime Minister of Australia.
> 
> While he's stuffing about in Singapore and Copenhagen, the boats and people smugglers are getting in to top gear.



GG,

Given the majority of refugees arrive in Australia by plane, I'm a little curious as to why you seem so upset about the minority of boat arrivals. 

I guess part of the question refers to media conditioning - are people now conditioned to find the term "boat people" highly emotive enough to ignore the majority of plane arrivals?


----------



## Calliope (17 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> GG,
> 
> Given the majority of refugees arrive in Australia by plane, I'm a little curious as to why you seem so upset about the minority of boat arrivals.
> 
> I guess part of the question refers to media conditioning - are people now conditioned to find the term "boat people" highly emotive enough to ignore the majority of plane arrivals?




Plane arrivals are much cheaper and easier to process and they have to have passports, and they are easier to turn around.

Boat arrivals usually don't have passports, they are very costly to process, and people smugglers decide which ones come here. And the "highly emotive" do-gooders get upset when we try to send the imposters back, because it is highly publicised by the media.


----------



## Mofra (17 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Plane arrivals are much cheaper and easier to process and they have to have passports, and they are easier to turn around.



Many have false passports and can take a long time to process - detention centres are not set up exclusively for boat arrivals, they generally contain a mix.



Calliope said:


> Boat arrivals usually don't have passports, they are very costly to process, and people smugglers decide which ones come here. And the "highly emotive" do-gooders get upset when we try to send the imposters back, because it is highly publicised by the media.



I'd say neither the right nor left are too concerned by those who have applications for refugee status cancelled, althought he far left (including self-proclaimed anarchists) and the far right are never happy regardless of the situation.

As for the term *"highly emotive" do-gooders*, I have found the further left at least have a grasp on the facts, as opposed to those further right who tend to fill the void left by the absence of NRA in Australia.


----------



## Calliope (17 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> As for the term *"highly emotive" do-gooders*, I have found the further left at least have a grasp on the facts, as opposed to those further right who tend to fill the void left by the absence of NRA in Australia.




I'm not surprised. It's not hard to see where you are coming from. Why do you ask questions when you already know the answers?


----------



## pilots (17 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Plane arrivals are much cheaper and easier to process and they have to have passports, and they are easier to turn around.
> 
> Boat arrivals usually don't have passports, they are very costly to process, and people smugglers decide which ones come here. And the "highly emotive" do-gooders get upset when we try to send the imposters back, because it is highly publicised by the media.




You will find that all most all of the plane arrivals are working, they can't get on welfare as they would found to be over stayers. The boat people are all wanting a HOUSE, WELFARE, HAND OUTS,  can we afford that.


----------



## Mofra (17 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> I'm not surprised. It's not hard to see where you are coming from. Why do you ask questions when you already know the answers?



That wasn't intended as a personal attack, although your posting and language make your political bias fairly clearso I can understand how someone looking for balance can appear threatoning. I was merely responding to the need to try and denigrade the opinions of others with derogative terms by offering a counter view. By the way, sentences without question marks at the end are generally not questions.


----------



## Mofra (17 November 2009)

pilots said:


> You will find that all most all of the plane arrivals are working, they can't get on welfare as they would found to be over stayers. The boat people are all wanting a HOUSE, WELFARE, HAND OUTS,  can we afford that.



No, the plane arrivals applying for refugee status was my reference as per my post.

I'd like to know how you can substantiate the claim for handouts being specific to boat people - in my experience refugee claims for support are not significantly different regardless their route of arrival. It is also worth noting that many of the plane arrivals are non-genuine refugees as well so are refused status and sent home. 

I personally don't see the importance in noting difference between method of arrival - an economic migrant is not a refugee is not an economic migrant, and method or arrival does not change this fact.


----------



## Calliope (17 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> That wasn't intended as a personal attack, although your posting and language make your political bias fairly *clearso* I can understand how someone looking for balance can appear *threatoning*. I was merely responding to the need to try and* denigrade *the opinions of others with derogative terms by offering a counter view. By the way, sentences without question marks at the end are generally not questions.




You are in no position to give me a lesson on punctuation, until you brush up on your spelling. 

As usual, your questions (comments?) are just nitpicking.


----------



## Mofra (17 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> You are in no position to give me a lesson on punctuation, until you brush up on your spelling. QUOTE]
> I would think a typo or two is a little different to a complete misunderstanding, but then again that is probably just nitpicking hey?


----------



## McCoy Pauley (18 November 2009)

Interesting to see today's Australian where three of their op-ed writers (Greg Sheridan, Dennis Shanahan and Paul Kelly) have all laid the boot into Rudd for cutting a deal with the Sri Lankan asylum seekers and then trying to deny that he's done the special deal.

Not sure whether to take their articles at face value at this stage.  The Oz's bias is fairly self-evident, I would have thought.

But they do raise some interesting issues about Rudd's personality.  As the first term continues, it seems to me (at least) that he's an ALP version of John Howard - everything needs to be in control for Rudd and if it isn't, he'll deny knowledge/responsibility.


----------



## Tink (19 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> No, the plane arrivals applying for refugee status was my reference as per my post.
> 
> I'd like to know how you can substantiate the claim for handouts being specific to boat people - in my experience refugee claims for support are not significantly different regardless their route of arrival. It is also worth noting that many of the plane arrivals are non-genuine refugees as well so are refused status and sent home.
> 
> I personally don't see the importance in noting difference between method of arrival - an economic migrant is not a refugee is not an economic migrant, and method or arrival does not change this fact.




Good post Mofra. Its all scaremongering

Just like those copy and paste forward emails we got plasted in every thread.

What a load of baloney

Yawn.


----------



## c-unit (19 November 2009)

Disgrace that a country like ours can be held to ransom by boat people. If they want to jump in the water, let them. They took the risk of attempting to enter illegally and they got busted. Bad luck. People criticise old Wilson for speaking his mind. Yet it is the same people that criticise other politicians for speaking rhetoric and having no backbone.

We need to take a hard stance on this. It is not fair to those families trying to enter Australia legitimately and whom have been patiently waiting for years. 

ETS + soft stance on border protection = Australia stuffed.


----------



## Calliope (19 November 2009)

Tink said:


> Good post Mofra. Its all scaremongering
> 
> Just like those copy and paste forward emails we got plasted in every thread.
> 
> ...




That sounds like sour grapes Tina. Haven't you learned how to do it?


----------

