# Boat People



## bigdog (18 October 2009)

I would imagine that the granting of visas for boat people costs Australian taxpayers from payment of benefits.

I assume that they will have very little when that arrive and the Australian taxpayers are requried to support them for considerable time!

What are the benefits paid for and the amounts paid to individual families.


----------



## Calliope (18 October 2009)

John Howard was rubbished when he said that we will decide who comes to Australia and the circumstances under which they came.

Now of course it is the people smugglers who decide these matters and it is making Kevin Rudd look very weak. Mouthing off abuse at the people smugglers didn't work, and now he has to start sounding like Howard, making "no apologies" for a hard line. 

And he has to do this in the face of orchestrated footage of the pleadings of the Sri Lankans, on their boat in Jakarta, who have paid the people smugglers big money to get them to Australian waters.

The situation is getting interesting.


----------



## pilots (18 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> John Howard was rubbished when he said that we will decide who comes to Australia and the circumstances under which they came.
> 
> Now of course it is the people smugglers who decide these matters and it is making Kevin Rudd look very weak. Mouthing off abuse at the people smugglers didn't work, and now he has to start sounding like Howard, making "no apologies" for a hard line.
> 
> ...




Lock them up in Indonesia for about ten years, then see how many still want to come here. Little John had it all under control.


----------



## chode84 (18 October 2009)

What I find funny is that they say the conditions are intolerable in Sri Lanka, which they very well may be, but they said that Indonesia is not safe enough because of Tsunami's and Australia is the only option.

If they really were legit refugees then surely Indonesia would be good enough for them. Beggars can't be choosers and to me its a tell tale sign that they are indeed not legit refugees.


----------



## pilots (18 October 2009)

chode84 said:


> What I find funny is that they say the conditions are intolerable in Sri Lanka, which they very well may be, but they said that Indonesia is not safe enough because of Tsunami's and Australia is the only option.
> 
> If they really were legit refugees then surely Indonesia would be good enough for them. Beggars can't be choosers and to me its a tell tale sign that they are indeed not legit refugees.




Do you think that Indonesia has no welfare, now free housing, no free medical has any thing to do with it???


----------



## pacestick (18 October 2009)

If they were genuine refugees i.e. tamils on the run from the sri lankan govt following the civil war they wpuld only have to go to India  be welcomed as  heroes , Indiia supported the tamils, and apply to UNHCR for genuine refugee status and resettlement in a country that takes UNHCR refuggess which includes Australia


----------



## chode84 (18 October 2009)

pilots said:


> Do you think that Indonesia has no welfare, now free
> housing, no free medical has any thing to do with it???





Thats kinda my point! They're obviously not real refugees if they have the luxury of turning down "refuge", even if it is Indonesia. Its still a refuge from the war they are escaping.


----------



## pilots (18 October 2009)

chode84 said:


> Thats kinda my point! They're obviously not real refugees if they have the luxury of turning down "refuge", even if it is Indonesia. Its still a refuge from the war they are escaping.




So true, Australia is a soft touch. It is time to say now more.


----------



## Riddick (18 October 2009)

Ok :

Point 1.
The UN definition of a refugee decrees that a refugee is only a refugee if they leave their home nation and seek refuge at the closet friendly port. What this means to australia is that basically very few foreign nationals can claim refugee status. If you pass through indonesia to get to australia, you are by definition not a refugee, you are an illegal immigrant.

Point 2. 
There is no room for emotional opinions in logical and pre defined debate. that is, if you are debating refugees, you are obliged to adopt the UN definition (even if you don't like the UN you are not in a position to make a value judgement, just accept the fact that this is the internationally accepted standard defintion for refugee)

Point 3. 
sovereign nations can create criteria for whoever they want in their own nation, regardless of how seemingly arbitary and discriminatory those criteria may be. 

Point 4.
on the fundamental level, governments have a primary responsibility to care for the needs of their own populace, sometimes to the exclusion and detriment of other peoples and other nations. you might not like this because you feel like we should be nice to people. It doesn't matter what you feel. see point two. 

Point 5.
Not everyone is even, not every nation is even, nor will everyone ever be even. some have more than others. Get used to it. it's the way it is. you might not like it or not hink it's fair. too bad, see point 2.

so:
keeping the previous points in mind Australia should.

1. do whatever it needs to deter possible arrivals. asylum seekers are not refugees.
2. Create a media environment that at least promotes an even debate. that is, not allowing the debate to become clouded in emotion or hijacked by the humanitarian right.
3. Legislate to keep arrivals out of the legal system. that is: if you are not an australian citizen, should you be allowed protection under australian law. Logic dictates no.
4. keep religion out of any refugee arguements.


----------



## robots (18 October 2009)

hello,

let them in

thankyou
Dr Robots


----------



## Riddick (18 October 2009)

robots said:


> hello,
> 
> let them in
> 
> ...





ok, 2 questions:

1. can we let "them" in to live next to you?

2. why?

at least i gave reasons. 

thanks


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2009)

I find the problem of "Boat People" to be a very difficult one for me. I have a mate who was a Vietnamese refugee as an 11 year old, who came to Australia via Malaysia in a boat. His story of leaving "home" and taking off , being ripped off, his family and friends being assaulted and preyed upon on the journey is heart rendering.

On the other hand I see that Australia to maintain its vital character cannot be a dumping ground for every man jack who decides to let the current take him or her here.

I am in a genuine quandry, and would always take a homeless person's side over a government's political decisions.

However , many of the recent boat people have not been fleeing persecution but rather using our slack laws since Kev07 came in, as a means to increase their economic chances in the world. I do not see how we can justify allowing them to queue jump.

Its a very difficult topic and I'd never get on a soap box about it.

gg


----------



## namrog (18 October 2009)

Fair comment GG, appart from that,  same old, same old arguements.

I'm sure the original inhabitants of this land would have preffered if all boat people had stayed away.................


----------



## noco (18 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I find the problem of "Boat People" to be a very difficult one for me. I have a mate who was a Vietnamese refugee as an 11 year old, who came to Australia via Malaysia in a boat. His story of leaving "home" and taking off , being ripped off, his family and friends being assaulted and preyed upon on the journey is heart rendering.
> 
> On the other hand I see that Australia to maintain its vital character cannot be a dumping ground for every man jack who decides to let the current take him or her here.
> 
> ...




GG the 255 Tamils stuck in Indonesia say they will be persecuted if they return to their home land. The Sri Lankin Government has gauranteed these people safety on their return. Too bad if they can't accept the Sri Lankin Governments word.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 October 2009)

namrog said:


> Fair comment GG, appart from that,  same old, same old arguements.
> 
> I'm sure the original inhabitants of this land would have preffered if all boat people had stayed away.................




I would agree totally mate.

gg



noco said:


> GG the 255 Tamils stuck in Indonesia say they will be persecuted if they return to their home land. The Sri Lankin Government has gauranteed these people safety on their return. Too bad if they can't accept the Sri Lankin Governments word.




That, as I've said above is why I find it very difficult to buy into this argument on the yea or nay side.

If a person is homeless and you can help them, then it is your responsibility as a fellow member of the human race to do so, however if a person pretends to be homeless to gain an economic advantage, or places themselves in that position when where they came from gave them political and economic security , then its more difficult.

I really don't want to be in this space so please direct your answers to others.

Its all too complicated for me.

gg


----------



## Dowdy (18 October 2009)

Riddick said:


> ok, 2 questions:
> 
> 1. can we let "them" in to live next to you?
> 
> ...




you'll find there not much substance in his post, just like between his ears.



We shouldn't let them in because we can hardly sustain ourselves - traffic, water, power. 

Fix up our problems before we can sustain more people in the country


----------



## Julia (18 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I find the problem of "Boat People" to be a very difficult one for me. I have a mate who was a Vietnamese refugee as an 11 year old, who came to Australia via Malaysia in a boat. His story of leaving "home" and taking off , being ripped off, his family and friends being assaulted and preyed upon on the journey is heart rendering.
> 
> On the other hand I see that Australia to maintain its vital character cannot be a dumping ground for every man jack who decides to let the current take him or her here.
> 
> ...






Dowdy said:


> We shouldn't let them in because we can hardly sustain ourselves - traffic, water, power.
> 
> Fix up our problems before we can sustain more people in the country



gg, I feel similarly to yourself, but then I agree with Dowdy's comments also.
As long as we have Australians who are homeless, and people dying in hospital corridors, there's a difficulty in my mind in accepting people who have come through various other countries to get to Australia.  Especially when they attempt to blackmail and coerce Australian authorities with threats of blowing up their boat, going on a hunger strike etc.


----------



## cuttlefish (19 October 2009)

Julia said:


> gg, I feel similarly to yourself, but then I agree with Dowdy's comments also.
> As long as we have Australians who are homeless, and people dying in hospital corridors, there's a difficulty in my mind in accepting people who have come through various other countries to get to Australia.  Especially when they attempt to blackmail and coerce Australian authorities with threats of blowing up their boat, going on a hunger strike etc.




Why is there always an assumption that boat people will not contribute productively to Australian society?


----------



## Tink (19 October 2009)

Its not just Australia that is getting an influx of boat people, its happening to all the other countries as well. 

We are complaining about 1,000, Europe is getting 35,000

I do feel for them as where are they to go?


----------



## robots (19 October 2009)

Dowdy said:


> you'll find there not much substance in his post, just like between his ears.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




hello,

just like your wallet Dowdy, nothing in it so you jealous of someone who has a couple of titles

check out the "living large" survey, aussie's are loving life and we have no problems in this country

yes i would have them next to me any day as better than most typical aussie families

thankyou
Dr Robots


----------



## dbcok (19 October 2009)

I see that Norway took about 14000 refugees last year,and similar the year before.Quite impressive for a country with barely five million people.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 October 2009)

dbcok said:


> I see that Norway took about 14000 refugees last year,and similar the year before.Quite impressive for a country with barely five million people.




They also gave ole smokin' Barack the Nobel Peace Prize, after he'd been in office for 9 weeks.

They are a nation of muppets.

So don't quote them on refugees mate. I wouldn't trust them to make me a highball, Cuba Libre, it would be full of jazmine.

gg


----------



## Prospector (19 October 2009)

I dont understand why everyone gets hung up on boat people. If we are talking illegal immigrants, then most of the estimated 60,000 illegal immigrants in Australia are not asylum seekers hoping to be judged as refugees. Most illegal immigrants arrive by air and overstay their visas.  They are generally tourists, students or people granted temporary-residence permits. They do not get much media attention and the Government does not appear to consider them a serious threat.

Maybe we should be worrying more about the tourists than the boat people.


----------



## Agentm (19 October 2009)

Prospector said:


> I dont understand why everyone gets hung up on boat people. If we are talking illegal immigrants, then most of the estimated 60,000 illegal immigrants in Australia are not asylum seekers hoping to be judged as refugees. Most illegal immigrants arrive by air and overstay their visas.  They are generally tourists, students or people granted temporary-residence permits. They do not get much media attention and the Government does not appear to consider them a serious threat.
> 
> Maybe we should be worrying more about the tourists than the boat people.




i know a lot of uk people who married here but never lived as husband and wifes, then divorced immediately after being granted citizenship..

i know indians and pakistanis who paid immigration officers 5k to get a visa to australia, then did the usual thing in getting a permanent place here..

some of the crime lords in illegal immigration are employees of the australian government. and some end up on a boat too long and turn the ship around and get the hell away from australia and panic big time when they are caught. as we see today...

these people travel illegally through many countries, and are very skilled at keeping all their cash away from the pirates and thieves and opportunists along the way.. 

are they persecuted and will they face persecution if they go back to their home country?  imho the greater majority will not

imho the moment they leave their border then they are safe, so why travel so long and far to australia, all of asia beacons with opportunity, and all countries they pass through can easily deal with a few thousand illegal immigrants.. imho there are a lot of people claiming to be persecuted and in exile but may in fact not be at all but merely wanting opportunity here in australia.

imho economics are the attraction.  ad its not poor and impoverished that arrive today like the Vietnamese runs we had years back, these immigrants are a new breed, have a lot of cash in hand and big bucks to turn over.. how they got hold of those sums is also never questioned!


----------



## The Once-ler (19 October 2009)

Tink said:


> Its not just Australia that is getting an influx of boat people, its happening to all the other countries as well.
> 
> We are complaining about 1,000, Europe is getting 35,000
> 
> I do feel for them as where are they to go?





But Europe has no choice, as the people can walk there. We do have a choice as we are an island. That's tough luck for Europe and good luck for us.

We should not be a soft touch here. Keep them out now, as it will just get much much tougher in the years ahead. Africa, the Middle East and Asia are headed for a nightmare situation with their exploding populations. That's not our problem, we should look after ourselves. 

Thousands wanting to come here now, will be multi millions in the decades ahead.


----------



## Tink (19 October 2009)

Sri Lanka to France you can walk?

Thats a new one..

Sorry I dont think like you.


----------



## donkeykong (19 October 2009)

My boss was a "boat person" from vietnam in the 70's now he earns 6 figures, has a family and is proud to call Australia home.

Australians really need a reality check about asylum seekers. More people cross the border illegally into the USA from Mexico without being picked up and processed before breakfast than enter Australia by boat all year. Also the amount of asylum seekers in Australia is nothing compared to countries like France, Italy and Spain.


----------



## dbcok (19 October 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> They also gave ole smokin' Barack the Nobel Peace Prize, after he'd been in office for 9 weeks.
> 
> They are a nation of muppets.
> 
> ...



You seem to have an intimate knowledge of Norwegians,their integrity ,character and worth.Where did you gain this information GG?


----------



## Timmy (19 October 2009)

Agentm said:


> i know a lot of uk people who married here but never lived as husband and wifes, then divorced immediately after being granted citizenship..
> 
> i know indians and pakistanis who paid immigration officers 5k to get a visa to australia, then did the usual thing in getting a permanent place here..
> 
> ...




Agentm - what's the story with the lack of capitals?  

I notice you capitalise your own user name and also you managed to slip a capital onto the word "Vietnamese".  If you type your post initially into a free program like Open Office Writer it will take care of capitalising for you, then just cut and copy it into ASF.  Making your post easier for others to follow, how hard can it be?


----------



## Calliope (27 October 2009)

Gerard Henderson in the SMH today:



> Unauthorised arrivals, whether by sea or air, tend to be both personally courageous and entrepreneurial. Consequently, they invariably make first-class citizens when given the chance to become Australians. Often unauthorised arrivals, who successfully claim asylum status, adapt better than those who come under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees-authorised annual refugee intake.




Perhaps Mr Rudd is on the wrong track when he rants about the people smugglers. Perhaps we should, after all, let the people smugglers decide who shall come to Australia. That way, we get the pick of the crop.


----------



## Chris45 (27 October 2009)

Senator David Johnston, Opposition Defense Spokesman, made a valid point in parliament yesterday (reported on Lateline last night) when he said,



> "So many young Afghan men are coming to this country on these boats while our young men, our best and finest young men, are in their country fighting the taliban."




These "asylum seekers" say they come here looking for freedom, so it's about time we sent them back to their countries to fight for their freedom instead of allowing them to run away like cowards.


----------



## mellifuous (27 October 2009)

No worries, let's build a big training centre  in the Kimberleys.

The centre would be staffed by ex-managers of the FMF and PIF.

As all these 'refugees' come in, they should be shipped to the training camp and taught how to run managed funds by the ex-managers.

They could then be sent back (after a decent feed and some new clothes) to their native countries to make a fortune.


----------



## Julia (27 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Senator David Johnston, Opposition Defense Spokesman, made a valid point in parliament yesterday (reported on Lateline last night) when he said,
> These "asylum seekers" say they come here looking for freedom, so it's about time we sent them back to their countries to fight for their freedom instead of allowing them to run away like cowards.



This is an irony which has occurred to me too.  Why should young Australians be fighting for a decent existence for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, when their own apparently healthy young men can't do likewise?

One answer I've come up with is that Australia as part of the so called Coalition of the Willing, engaged in destroying much of these countries on a poorly thought out and illogical pretext, so perhaps we owe them something.
I don't know.  There are many ways of considering the many aspects of this whole miserable situation.


----------



## doctorj (28 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> These "asylum seekers" say they come here looking for freedom, so it's about time we sent them back to their countries to fight for their freedom instead of allowing them to run away like cowards.



Surely there's a material difference between a trained, equipped and organised force and a group of individuals with no particular skills, training, equipment or leadership?

When's the last time you fought for your freedom?


----------



## dbcok (28 October 2009)

Perhaps assylum seekers look for safer lives,as the first priority.
Politicians only play politics,not to be taken seriously.
Before we call others cowards perhaps we should all have a good look in the mirror.


----------



## Tink (28 October 2009)

The politicians are getting tiring with this saga

well said doctorj and dbcok


----------



## Gone Fishin (28 October 2009)

doctorj said:


> Surely there's a material difference between a trained, equipped and organised force and a group of individuals with no particular skills, training, equipment or leadership?
> 
> When's the last time you fought for your freedom?




Sounds very impressive what you just wrote. Can you please put it into layman terms?


----------



## mellifuous (28 October 2009)

doctorj said:


> When's the last time you fought for your freedom?




Hey Doc, why attack the messenger?

I'm sure you're wise enough to know that Australians haven't gone to war to protect their freedom since WWII, but when they had to, they did. 

Yes, there was the 'Brisbane Line' and people did run from the Cities to the bush, but did  they migrate to a better life and safety in Tasmania? No, they didn't.

Well, if it's safety that's their goal, then these 'refugees' are passing through quite a few safe places to get here.

I think it's all a croc.   It's all about economics.

Aren't they lucky we don't adopt the policy of playing 'bomb the boat'?

If it's good enough for their cousins, uncles, sisters, brothers, supporters, etc. to play political games to get them in, then surely if any of us have alternative views we should be allowed to express our views.

I'd guess Australia is still a democracy, and each of us are entitled to express our view.

Please, please, please - don't attack me, attack my argument.


----------



## bunyip (28 October 2009)

mellifuous said:


> No worries, let's build a big training centre  in the Kimberleys.
> 
> The centre would be staffed by ex-managers of the FMF and PIF.
> 
> ...




Perhaps we could send Manny Cassamatis up to the Kimberleys to take charge of their training. He knows all about making money, and I hear he's looking for a new career.
Make him serve 20 years up there instead of throwing him in a Queensland jail.


----------



## derty (28 October 2009)

mellifuous said:


> Aren't they lucky we don't adopt the policy of playing 'bomb the boat'?



Yeah! Why can't we just have a Bottom of the Pacific Solution?


----------



## noco (28 October 2009)

Julia said:


> This is an irony which has occurred to me too.  Why should young Australians be fighting for a decent existence for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, when their own apparently healthy young men can't do likewise?
> 
> One answer I've come up with is that Australia as part of the so called Coalition of the Willing, engaged in destroying much of these countries on a poorly thought out and illogical pretext, so perhaps we owe them something.
> I don't know.  There are many ways of considering the many aspects of this whole miserable situation.




Julia, I reckon we should train them here and send them back to fight their their own battles in their own country.


----------



## doctorj (28 October 2009)

mellifuous said:


> Hey Doc, why attack the messenger?



You misunderstand.

The point is, it's very easy to call people that flee their country for a better life cowards, but the reality a long way from the romantic notion of overcoming all odds and fighting for your freedom.  

It's also very good work invoking WW2.  But as long as we're talking about battles our relatives fought, it's fair to point out that the Afghans essentially defeated the Russians.  But I'm not sure how any of it's relevant.


----------



## Nyden (28 October 2009)

noco said:


> Julia, I reckon we should train them here and send them back to fight their their own battles in their own country.




Sounds good to me. 

How will these countries *ever* become stable, and strong if their people never fight for it? I realise that it's easy for me to say, having been born in a country that already did this long before I ever existed, but too bad! I shouldn't be made to feel guilty simply because I won the genetic lottery, and I won't be.


----------



## mellifuous (28 October 2009)

doctorj said:


> You misunderstand.
> 
> The point is, it's very easy to call people that flee their country for a better life cowards, but the reality a long way from the romantic notion of overcoming all odds and fighting for your freedom.
> 
> It's also very good work invoking WW2.  But as long as we're talking about battles our relatives fought, it's fair to point out that the Afghans essentially defeated the Russians.  But I'm not sure how any of it's relevant.




With respect, it's you who missed the point.

Have a nice day.


----------



## doctorj (28 October 2009)

mellifuous said:


> With respect, it's you who missed the point.
> 
> Have a nice day.



I'll check back tomorrow morning to see if your point has become any clearer with the benefit of additional time.

For the record, I wasn't attacking the messenger at all (but if Chris45 feels aggrieved, I'm certain he's capable of fighting his own battles), but rather pointing out that it's very easy to say that individuals should be leading some sort of battle against terrorism or oppression in their country of origin having never experienced anything similar.


----------



## derty (28 October 2009)

Nyden said:


> How will these countries *ever* become stable, and strong if their people never fight for it?



Well, the Tamil's did and they lost. Hence their exodous.


----------



## nomore4s (28 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Senator David Johnston, Opposition Defense Spokesman, made a valid point in parliament yesterday (reported on Lateline last night) when he said,
> 
> These "asylum seekers" say they come here looking for freedom, so it's about time we sent them back to their countries to fight for their freedom instead of allowing them to run away like cowards.




Australians are kidding themselves if they think people wouldn't be leaving this country in droves and seeking better lives elsewhere if we had to live under the same conditions as some of the asylum seekers are fleeing from.

While it is all well and good to say they should be staying to fight for their freedom I can assure you the reality of actually doing that is nowhere near as romantic as what the movies make it out to be. And unlike the movies the good guys don't always win.


----------



## $20shoes (28 October 2009)

Prospector said:


> I dont understand why everyone gets hung up on boat people. If we are talking illegal immigrants, then most of the estimated 60,000 illegal immigrants in Australia are not asylum seekers hoping to be judged as refugees. Most illegal immigrants arrive by air and overstay their visas.  They are generally tourists, students or people granted temporary-residence permits. They do not get much media attention and the Government does not appear to consider them a serious threat.
> 
> Maybe we should be worrying more about the tourists than the boat people.





Salient point...Australia processes 500 migrants per day. Of those, only 30% ever gain approval to stay. At any one time we have approximately 40,000-70,000 illegal migrants in Australia. 

90% of boat people - who make up an small number of our illegal migrants - end up being genuine refugees. 

If you wear a collared shirt and arrive by plane, it seems we won't hound you. If you are desperately poor, displaced and have no where to go, we'll give you a bloody hard time for not arriving by plane and overstaying your visa like a good little migrant should.


----------



## overit (28 October 2009)

*Re: Border Security Rudd Weak*

Some nice journo come up with these stats. 



> Asylum-seekers arrive by plane, not boat
> 
> October 25, 2009 08:15am
> 
> ...


----------



## pilots (28 October 2009)

What I find strange is that what the boat people pay to come here, would be moor than enough money to go to India, and buy a house and a business.


----------



## derty (28 October 2009)

Thanks for the article overit. Good to see the numbers in perspective. 

It really does show that a lot of it is a media and political beatup. The media knows it is a contentious issue that will sell papers and get viewers. The politicians know they can continuously get good political mileage from the issue. All the time they are playing to the more fearful and insecure and increasing their anxieties. You can see the results both in everyday conversation and the posts here.


----------



## boofhead (28 October 2009)

Many of the boat people that pay for the trip borrow the money from questionable people.

It is interesting to watch well researched documentaries on the issue like those often shown on SBS and ABC when compared to primetime rubbish of 7 and 9. 7 and 9 are good at throwing numbers are people without suitable context and often the figures themselves cannot be reconciled.

All the rubbish figures thrown around by media organisations without valid and clear reputable sources should result in fines. They make money from the sales so they should suffer consequences of peddling incorrect information that can be very emotive.


----------



## mellifuous (28 October 2009)

boofhead said:


> Many of the boat people that pay for the trip borrow the money from questionable people.
> 
> It is interesting to watch well researched documentaries on the issue like those often shown on SBS and ABC when compared to primetime rubbish of 7 and 9. 7 and 9 are good at throwing numbers are people without suitable context and often the figures themselves cannot be reconciled.
> 
> All the rubbish figures thrown around by media organisations without valid and clear reputable sources should result in fines. They make money from the sales so they should suffer consequences of peddling incorrect information that can be very emotive.




It doesn't matter what the figures are - we end up paying for them.

I wouldn't say that SBS and the ABC are without bias.

If anyone thinks for a moment that the media isn't out to knead our malleable neural connexions in order to form a particular pretext, then they're in la-la land.

Clearly they get your support, but not mine.

Such is a democracy - bring back the Libs.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 October 2009)

The question is ... if it wasn't in the media would it affect anyone? I propose not as it is under control and no, repeat no, threat to any Australian residents existence. Now if there were thousands lining up daily off the coast there would be a problem.
Look at the matter from it's severity and impact on Australia rather than an alarmist, emotive, attention seeking or boring life context.


----------



## Nyden (28 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> The question is ... if it wasn't in the media would it affect anyone? I propose not as it is under control and no, repeat no, threat to any Australian residents existence. Now if there were thousands lining up daily off the coast there would be a problem.
> Look at the matter from it's severity and impact on Australia rather than an alarmist, emotive, attention seeking or boring life context.




The issue is not the people that are currently coming now; but the possible future. If Australia is seen as a 'welcome with open arms' country, these numbers will certainly begin to climb. 

My key issue is infrastructure. We hardly have enough of it to support our *own* domestic growth, and legal immigration - let alone illegal immigration if it starts to pick up.

Unfortunately, there is no solution to asylum seekers. They're there, and few (if any) countries actually want them. And, of course less people care about 'plane people' - because these individuals probably have more money, and more of an education. They can actually bring something of value from the get go, as opposed to the others; who I would postulate have a greater probability of being a financial burden.

It's always numbers. Always comes down to numbers, and money. That's just the way it is. The human cost is there, but that tends to get thrown out with the bitterness associated with the idea of jobs, homes, and infrastructure becoming less available due to immigration.

Note, I do say *idea*. Obviously immigration plays a fairly small role in these factors, but the public need someone to blame.


----------



## Calliope (28 October 2009)

The Oceanic Viking may become the new Flying Dutchman and may have to cruise the Seven Seas forever. Indonesia does not want it's cargo of Ski Lankans and Mr Rudd has ruled out bringing them to Christmas Island. This would involve loss of face.

Mr Rudd is used to buying popularity by dispensing money and spin. Apparently this recipe is not working with the Indonesians.


----------



## Happy (28 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> ...
> Mr Rudd is used to buying popularity by dispensing money and spin. *Apparently this recipe is not working with the Indonesians*.




I think it works well over there, but he underestimated his position and that they consider to up the stakes.


----------



## Chris45 (28 October 2009)

doctorj said:


> Surely there's a material difference between a trained, equipped and organised force and a group of individuals with no particular skills, training, equipment or leadership?



I would have thought that it would be obvious that I meant that they should be sent back to join their Afghan National Army to fight! 



> When's the last time you fought for your freedom?



You have obviously never faced the prospect of having to fight for yours!

During the ‘60s, the US convinced many of us that communism was taking over South East Asia (Domino Theory) and that we would come under attack. Many young Australians were conscripted into the army and sent to Vietnam *to fight for our freedom*, as well as the freedom of the region, and many paid the ultimate price - or have you forgotten that? As it turned out they were seriously misled by the government, but the absolutely shameful treatment that was dished out to those who returned home believing that they had done the right thing for their country is something that still angers and disgusts me to this day.   

Most nations these days rely on a volunteer or professional military rather than maintaining conscription, although many of these countries still reserve the possibility of conscription for wartime and during times of crises. Given that Afghanistan and Iraq are in a state of turmoil, I think that conscription in those countries would be appropriate to bring stability to the region. People do not really appreciate freedom and democracy unless they have fought for it, or have faced the prospect of fighting for it.

Perhaps our recalcitrant GenYs would appreciate this country more if they had to do a period of some sort of national service.


----------



## Chris45 (28 October 2009)

Julia said:


> This is an irony which has occurred to me too.  Why should young Australians be fighting for a decent existence for the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, when their own apparently healthy young men can't do likewise?
> 
> One answer I've come up with is that Australia as part of the so called Coalition of the Willing, engaged in destroying much of these countries on a poorly thought out and illogical pretext, so perhaps we owe them something.
> I don't know.  There are many ways of considering the many aspects of this whole miserable situation.



Yes Julia, I think you have a valid point there. During the ‘70s, after we lost the Vietnam war, I think we felt obliged to accept the Vietnamese refugees fleeing from their now Communist-controlled country and that set a bit of a precedent. 

In the middle-east there seems to be one group of people on a mission from God to take over the world, and another group who just want a better life. Unless the latter group are prepared to fight for the better life they seek then the former group of 'godbotherers' will win. There’s an argument for giving refugees who can’t fight, (mothers and children, elderly, etc) temporary shelter until their countries are stabilized, but those who can fight should be encouraged to go back home and do so.


----------



## Mr J (28 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Perhaps our recalcitrant GenYs would appreciate this country more if they had to do a period of some sort of national service.




And perhaps governments would have more appreciation for their people. Many Gen Ys are providing for the country, and will over time become the primary providers. Where is the appreciation? There won't be any, because it will be *expected*, just as now Gen Ys and most others have expectations when living in Australia. It works both ways.


----------



## Chris45 (28 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> Many Gen Ys are providing for the country, and will over time become the primary providers. Where is the appreciation?



I was referring to the *recalcitrant* GenYs, those who exhibit a stubborn resistance to authority and little respect for the rest of the population and the hard work done in trying to create a decent environment for us all to enjoy, ie. the vandals, graffitiers, louts, etc. Not all GenYs are recalcitrant, but the significant number who are, spoil it for everyone.


----------



## Mr J (28 October 2009)

There will always be people like that, and of all ages. You're talking about punk kids though, and most of them will grow up at some point. National service for all kids wouldn't be a horrible idea, since it teaches discipline and responsibility.


----------



## Chris45 (28 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> National service for all kids wouldn't be a horrible idea, since it teaches discipline and responsibility.



Yes I agree, and I don't think it would have to necessarily be military training either, although learning respect for authority and how to defend oneself is not a bad idea, as long as it's done responsibly by suitably qualified trainers.

There could be community service, for the conscientious objectors, which would teach them to appreciate and respect our country and our environment. Everyone should be required to do service of some kind and give something back to the community.

There might be fewer 'punk' kids resorting to drugs, binge drinking and violence (and perhaps even suicide) if their weekends were spent in camps learning discipline, respect, responsibility and how to be appreciative and caring, instead of hooning and night clubbing until dawn and kicking each others' heads in like too many of them do now.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> There might be fewer 'punk' kids resorting to drugs, binge drinking and violence (and perhaps even suicide) if their weekends were spent in camps learning discipline, respect, responsibility and how to be appreciative and caring, instead of hooning and night clubbing until dawn and kicking each others' heads in like too many of them do now.



Might help if the adults learned those things first.  How about a camp for all the adults perpetuating the bad social skills.


----------



## Mr J (28 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> instead of hooning and night clubbing until dawn and kicking each others' heads in like too many of them do now.




I doubt anything has changed. It wasn't long ago that I was hitting the clubs most nights, and there wasn't much violence. There might be a scuffle between some drunks or thugs (both without female company) on the street, but that's about it. I get a strong "kids these days" vibe from you, Chris . Yeah, they're punks, but most of us probably were to various extents.


----------



## nunthewiser (28 October 2009)

Enjoys nightclubbing till dawn ........ speaking of which got a hot date .Better put some pants on


----------



## lukeaye (28 October 2009)

Violence in clubs these days has gotten so extreme. I'm 21, and i have had so much trouble with fights. I have been stomped and beaten by 12 guys, within an inch of my life, because i knocked down a person in a 1 v 1.

My friend was dancing with a girl, and had 2 guys run up to him and glass him. Looked like he had been in a car crash. Everywhere i go there are fights. When i play touch footy, always a fight. When i play league, always a fight. Its like the world has gone mad.

But i hear the stories of my father, and many other's from the baby boomers, and it doesnt sound much better! The only difference is, now people use weapons, and gang up, very cowardly.

Hang on, are we talking about boat people? haha


----------



## Julia (28 October 2009)

So, Luke, you have two generations of your family who are peculiarly unable to avoid being in fights.
Doesn't that ring some bells?

I'm a baby boomer, as are most of my friends.  I've known a lot of people over a lot of years from various generations.
I've never known a single person who has been in a fight.


----------



## lukeaye (28 October 2009)

Julia said:


> So, Luke, you have two generations of your family who are peculiarly unable to avoid being in fights.
> Doesn't that ring some bells?
> 
> I'm a baby boomer, as are most of my friends.  I've known a lot of people over a lot of years from various generations.
> I've never known a single person who has been in a fight.




I am prone to getting into fights, i won't deny that, and im not proud of it. But what im saying is, that even people in my sporting teams, who aren't directly linked to me, are getting into a lot of fights.

I also know people who havent been in fights, but im saying the vast majority or people in my generation have. I obviously have very small sample data for your generation, but from my friends fathers etc, i have heard it wasnt much better back then either.


----------



## Mr J (29 October 2009)

I'm guessing location/socio-economic status plays a part. Go to the wrong place in Sydney, get into a fight, and soon enough all of his cousins will start showing up . I never had a problem with fights in the city, but then I didn't go in for a night on the piss with a huge bunch of mates, I went with or to find female company. Make love, not war .


----------



## Chris45 (29 October 2009)

Mr J said:


> I get a strong "kids these days" vibe from you, Chris . Yeah, they're punks, but most of us probably were to various extents.



Well J, you and your friends might have been  but I must have grown up in a very different environment to you because I don’t remember my peers being anything like 'kids' of these days. Perhaps I was extremely lucky but I went to discos and rock bands around Melbourne with no concern about violence and I never witnessed any of the violence that Lukeaye has just described, not even a mild punch-up. I have previously described the tragic story of a friend of mine who was recently left severely brain damaged after being bashed outside a nightclub by a savage thug.

The wanton vandalism and senseless graffiti we see everywhere these days, even to private property, was unknown when I was a kid and if any generation had a reason to be angry with the world it should have been mine. First, we faced the very real prospect of being sent off to die horribly in a steamy mosquito infested paddy field and then later, the threat of being vaporized (if we were lucky) or dying a slow and painful death from radiation (if we were unlucky) during an all out nuclear war.

Anyway, we’ve been down this "kids these days" path before and failed to agree on anything so let’s get back on topic and focus on the current problem of boat people.


----------



## Chris45 (29 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Might help if the adults learned those things first.  How about a camp for all the adults perpetuating the bad social skills.



Well, we do have something like that already. It's called 'jail'. 
But something really needs to be done to break the cycle and re-educating the kids seems to me to be the best place to start.


----------



## Calliope (29 October 2009)

What will be the fate of the Tamils on the Oceanic Viking?  Will they be forcibly removed, and if so, by whom? Or will Mr Rudd put a new spin on the stand-off  and justify bringing them to Christmas Island?

Will he be tough but fair or fair but tough?


----------



## Agentm (29 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> What will be the fate of the Tamils on the Oceanic Viking?  Will they be forcibly removed, and if so, by whom? Or will Mr Rudd put a new spin on the stand-off  and justify bringing them to Christmas Island?
> 
> Will he be tough but fair or fair but tough?




nice situation to be in.. the illegal immigrants dont need to do anything, 

i wonder if next we will see the illegal immigrants jump onto cruise ships and container ships heading to australia in the asian ports.. once on board they cant be removed or a major incident occurs

this sets a precedent


----------



## noco (29 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> What will be the fate of the Tamils on the Oceanic Viking?  Will they be forcibly removed, and if so, by whom? Or will Mr Rudd put a new spin on the stand-off  and justify bringing them to Christmas Island?
> 
> Will he be tough but fair or fair but tough?




Calliope, have you not heard the Labor "PARROTS" well rehearsed lines from Kevin Rudd's mouth, "PATIENCE, PATIENCE, PATIENCE.

They are all hopping this BAD situation will go away or some sort of miricale will happen. In the meantime, these Labor Party TWITS have no idea what to do. Rudd's so called Indonesian solution with the Indonesian President has BACK FIRED big time.

My guess is Rudd will have to face embarrassment and bring them to Australia for processing. Wait for the SPIN to come with it.


----------



## Julia (29 October 2009)

This is really the government's first setback since taking office and it's fascinating to see them flailing around so impotently.  Even some of their own back bench are being critical of the dear Leader.


----------



## pilots (29 October 2009)

Ruds only hope now is to let 3,000,000 in and hope they all vote for him


----------



## Calliope (29 October 2009)

pilots said:


> Ruds only hope now is to let 3,000,000 in and hope they all vote for him




There's a few hundred thousand displaced Tamils in Sri Lanka for starters. The local people smugglers are starting to get well organised. For a price they will take them straight to Christmas Island and by-pass Indonesia. In turn Mr Rudd should by-pass the smugglers and fly them out by Qantas. They will be forever grateful.

He should also ask Indonesia for a refund  of taxpayers' money that he has handed over.


----------



## bunyip (29 October 2009)

Just had a new Solar hot water system installed. The Solarhart man, Jack, is a former white farmer from Zimbabwe. Came out here 10 years ago after being forced off his farm by Mugabe's laws that supposedly give African land back to black Africans. 

He grew maize, wheat, cattle, and bananas, employing up to 300 workers during harvest.
When he was forced off his farm, crops ready for harvest rotted in the field. He wasn't even allowed to sell his machinery.

Since coming to Australia he's kept in regular touch with his former farm foreman -  a black man who was Jack's right hand man for more than ten years. The foreman told him that the crops rotted in the field after the farm was abandoned, no move was made to harvest them, everyone who lived on the farm, both black and white, had to leave, the machinery is still sitting where it was left, the farm has never been used since.

He said to Jack _"Gee life was sweet on the farm. Now we have to live in hovels, go hungry, scrounge for food, very few people are employed. The black people over here hate Mugabe."_
Jack regularly looks at his old farm via Google Earth (for those of you who are unfamiliar with it, it's the computer program that allows you to type in an address and you can then zoom in on that address to get a close up aerial view of it). 
He says everything is in disrepair, cropping fields are going back to weeds and are being invaded by new forest growth etc.

The crazy part about Mugabe's plan is that the land is not given back to black Africans at all.....they're not even allowed to live on it and it's just standing there vacant and unproductive. Meanwhile the country is in a state of starvation and requires a constant stream of financial aid from overseas. 

There are hundreds of thousands of white Zimbabweans who would love the opportunity to come to Australia. But the only way they can get in here is if they have previous business experience, a certain amount of capital, and give a commitment to start or buy a business in Australia within a certain time - I think it's 18 months or two years.

Compare this to how black Africans such as Sudanese refugees or these bloody boat people are treated here.....they can come in here, don't have to fulfil anywhere near the same criteria, get government handouts right from the start, don't have to start businesses, don't have to possess the skills to get a job, don't have to be English speakers.  Every time I drive past Centrelink there are a mob of Sudanese hanging around outside. It's utterly ridiculous.

This idiot Rudd needs shooting for the stuff-up he's made with the illegal immigration issue. 
He dismantled the tough measures put in place by Howard - measures that were proving very effective in addressing the problem of immigrants arriving illegally by boat. 
We're spending almost three quarters of a billion dollars annually on giving them handouts, and the figure is increasing constantly. 
Meanwhile, most of the truly suitable people who want to come here, people like white Zimbabweans who speak perfect English, are culturally similar and compatible with us, are educated and have the ability to slot into our society and become productive citizens immediately, are kept out. 
It's downright pathetic.


----------



## Calliope (29 October 2009)

Julia said:


> This is really the government's first setback since taking office and it's fascinating to see them flailing around so impotently.  Even some of their own back bench are being critical of the dear Leader.




Mr Rudd's spin doctors must be working overtime to put a positive spin on his likely back down on his "hard line" stance.

It will go something like this;  

"Unlike the previous government I make no apology for adopting the humane approach not to force these unfortunate people off the boat... etc"


----------



## Julia (29 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> Mr Rudd's spin doctors must be working overtime to put a positive spin on his likely back down on his "hard line" stance.
> 
> It will go something like this;
> 
> "Unlike the previous government I make no apology for adopting the humane approach not to force these unfortunate people off the boat... etc"



Yep, the PR firm will be hard at it right now.
And I reckon the phrase 'make no apology' will be in there at least three times.
This seems to be his current favourite phrase.  Probably thinks it sounds really, really tough, to go with the other favourite phrase, "the tough decisions".

And Bunyip, you're so right about the Zimbabweans.  Ditto the South Africans.
All those I've met are good people, hardworking and decent.

I can't help feeling disgusted that the rest of the international community has simply watched the destruction of Zimbabwe.


----------



## Chris45 (29 October 2009)

Excellent post bunyip!!!


----------



## Calliope (29 October 2009)

bunyip said:


> Meanwhile, most of the truly suitable people who want to come here, people like white Zimbabweans who speak perfect English, are culturally similar and compatible with us, are educated and have the ability to slot into our society and become productive citizens immediately, are kept out.
> It's downright pathetic.




This couldn't be by chance. It seems to be a deliberate policy to select people whose cultures and lifestyles are so different from ours that assimilation is virtually impossible.

A high proportion of these have few relevant job or language skills, which makes them more welfare dependant. However this policy is not going to change if the UK example is any guideline.


----------



## noco (29 October 2009)

It is unbelivable as to how this weasel Rudd is still so popular in the polls.

The Shri Lankans and Indonesia have got Rudd over a barrel and he just does not know what to do.

He says to his opposition "well what is your solution". If I were Malcolm Turnbull I would give him the reply he deserves."You got yourself into this mess, you work it out".

He (Rudd) was warned by the Federal Police that if  he abandoned the Pacific solution he would have an influx of illegal immigrants. I do not know why Turnbull has not used this against Rudd!


----------



## derty (29 October 2009)

bunyip said:


> There are * hundreds of thousands of white* Zimbabweans who would love the opportunity to come to Australia. But the only way they can get in here is if they have previous business experience, a certain amount of capital, and give a commitment to start or buy a business in Australia within a certain time - I think it's 18 months or two years.
> 
> Compare this to how *black Africans * such as Sudanese refugees or these bloody boat people are treated here.....they can come in here, don't have to fulfil anywhere near the same criteria, get government handouts right from the start, don't have to start businesses, don't have to possess the skills to get a job, don't have to be English speakers.  Every time I drive past Centrelink there are a mob of Sudanese hanging around outside. It's utterly ridiculous.
> 
> ...



FYI as of 2001 there were only about 50,000 white Zimbabweans in the country down from 250-300,000 in the mid 1970's. I know of several Zimbabwean families working in my town and they are all really nice people. Funny thing is 3/4 of them are black families. Most of these families have at least one professional worker and their English is impeccable. 

If you have a look at the most recent numbers from 07-08. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/statistics/immigration-update/update-dec08.pdf

You will see that the total arrivals given residency in Australia of both refugees and migrants was about 149,000. Comprising 103k normal migration, 35k Kiwi's and 9.5k Humanitarian/Refugees.

If you compare the arrivals by country there were 5166 South Africans, 1019 Zimbabweans and 1018 Sudanese.

It's an interesting document, have a read.


----------



## derty (29 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> This couldn't be by chance. It seems to be a deliberate policy to select people whose cultures and lifestyles are so different from ours that assimilation is virtually impossible.



Might this be because most countries that have cultures and lifestyles similar to ours are politically stable 1st world countries and are not producing refugees? 

These countries with similar cultures and lifestyles to ours are still well represented in the migration figures.


----------



## caribean (29 October 2009)

derty said:


> Might this be because most countries that have cultures and lifestyles similar to ours are politically stable 1st world countries and are not producing refugees?
> 
> These countries with similar cultures and lifestyles to ours are still well represented in the migration figures.




Well put Dirty.
Since we are getting our knickers in a twist about who's got the right to be here, who hasn't, and who's culture should be the dominant one in this country, then i would imagine we should be mainly accepting people with dark skin and preferably speaking one of the Aboriginal dialects.
Take a look at some real #'s of refugees we accept, compare to other first world economies.
I understand we don't want to advertise the fact, but if these people are trying so hard to get here, then maybe they're the ones we want?


----------



## Tink (30 October 2009)

derty said:


> Might this be because most countries that have cultures and lifestyles similar to ours are politically stable 1st world countries and are not producing refugees?
> 
> These countries with similar cultures and lifestyles to ours are still well represented in the migration figures.




well said

Every time we get some one new, its the same rigma roll.


----------



## bigdog (30 October 2009)

Why was the Oceanic Viking being in Indonesian waters?


----------



## wayneL (30 October 2009)

Tink said:


> ...its the same rigma roll.




It's rigmarole.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2009)

wayneL said:


> It's rigmarole.




No wonder I couldn't find it in my "Handbook of Exotic Dishes."  I thought it may have been a food served to new arrivals.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2009)

caribean said:


> I understand we don't want to advertise the fact, but if these people are trying so hard to get here, then maybe they're the ones we want?




You've hit the nail on the head. The boat people are showing the initiative and skills that make good migrants. On the other hand Africans being displaced  in their homelands by religious and/or tribal wars are selected on the basis of who are the most desperate. 

The number that we take is really only a token gesture to make us feel good. It doesn't make a scrap of difference to the standards of living to those left behind.


----------



## Julia (30 October 2009)

bigdog said:


> Why was the Oceanic Viking being in Indonesian waters?



Bigdog, as I understand it, the asylum seekers' boat was in distress (not sure what that includes) in international waters, but it so happened the Oceanic Viking was closest to it, so did the rescue.



wayneL said:


> It's rigmarole.



Now, if I'd pointed that out, there would have been Gumby Learner or someone like him immediately jumping on me for being a pedant!


----------



## derty (30 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> You've hit the nail on the head. The boat people are showing the initiative and skills that make good migrants.



Joe, you might want to check the IP address of Calliope's recent posts. I think someone may have hacked his account! :


----------



## mellifuous (30 October 2009)

noco said:


> It is unbelivable as to how this weasel Rudd is still so popular in the polls.
> 
> The Shri Lankans and Indonesia have got Rudd over a barrel and he just does not know what to do.
> 
> ...





hear, hear....

and this from the great visionary M. Fielding:-

"... Yesterday Family First  senator Steve Fielding admitted the Rudd Government's changes that he supported to Australia's immigration and border protection laws were having unintended consequences. ..."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26279175-421,00.html

As for M. Turnbull, I would say 'bring back John Howard'.

Government is only effective with an effective opposition, and an effective opposition we don't have.


----------



## Out Too Soon (30 October 2009)

Prospector said:


> I dont understand why everyone gets hung up on boat people. If we are talking illegal immigrants, then most of the estimated 60,000 illegal immigrants in Australia are not asylum seekers hoping to be judged as refugees. Most illegal immigrants arrive by air and overstay their visas.  They are generally tourists, students or people granted temporary-residence permits. They do not get much media attention and the Government does not appear to consider them a serious threat.
> 
> Maybe we should be worrying more about the tourists than the boat people.




   Exactly the point I was going to make Prospector. Most illegal immigrants arrive by plane & are far less desparate than the "boat people". It's heartless & cruel to turn away boat people.
   Shame on you Australia & shame on Cruddy for being such a weak wimp not standing up for human rights & instaed kow-towing to the media created xenophobes.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2009)

derty said:


> Joe, you might want to check the IP address of Calliope's recent posts. I think someone may have hacked his account! :




I don't know what point you are trying to make, but you obviously haven't read my post # 30 on this thread.


----------



## Happy (30 October 2009)

We write pages and pages of crap that will not influence our leaders who have democratically elected license to do as they please.


Just hope, we will not have Bali or 9/11 on our soil !


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 October 2009)

Happy said:


> We write pages and pages of crap that will not influence our leaders who have democratically elected license to do as they please.
> 
> 
> Just hope, we will not have Bali or 9/11 on our soil !



They absolutely determined to get us you reckon?


----------



## Happy (30 October 2009)

Out Too Soon said:


> Exactly the point I was going to make Prospector. *Most illegal immigrants arrive by plane & are far less desparate than the "boat people". *It's heartless & cruel to turn away boat people.
> Shame on you Australia & shame on Cruddy for being such a weak wimp not standing up for human rights & instaed kow-towing to the media created xenophobes.





Do not forget that *arrivals by plane have right papers to enter*

Boaters often destroy all their identity papers, pay lots more than air ticket.


----------



## Happy (30 October 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> They absolutely determined to get us you reckon?




Are we absolutely sure that none of them isn't?


----------



## derty (30 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> I don't know what point you are trying to make, but you obviously haven't read my post # 30 on this thread.



I was implying my surprise at you making a somewhat positive comment about the boat people and my surprise that I agreed with one of your comments. 

As for your post #30. 


> Perhaps Mr Rudd is on the wrong track when he rants about the people smugglers. Perhaps we should, after all, let the people smugglers decide who shall come to Australia. That way, we get the pick of the crop.



I simply mistook it as you using a tenuous implication to make another jibe at Rudd.  While I am not a fan of Rudd, I am less of a fan of Howard and your lack of any impartiality within the political sphere is obvious.

If you were genuine about people smugglers being a better judge of a person than the UNHCR or the Australian Govt, surely Howard's; "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come." would be the statement and position most diametrically opposite to your implied stance.


----------



## mellifuous (30 October 2009)

derty said:


> While I am not a fan of Rudd, I am less of a fan of Howard and your lack of any impartiality within the political sphere is obvious.




{emphasis mine}

I think it's fair to say that no one in this debate is impartial - such is life.


----------



## Julia (30 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> This couldn't be by chance. It seems to be a deliberate policy to select people whose cultures and lifestyles are so different from ours that assimilation is virtually impossible.
> 
> A high proportion of these have few relevant job or language skills, which makes them more welfare dependant. However this policy is not going to change if the UK example is any guideline.






Calliope said:


> I don't know what point you are trying to make, but you obviously haven't read my post # 30 on this thread.




Calliope, I think you've caused some puzzlement about an apparent change of attitude since your first quoted post above.
I, too, wondered if someone had hacked your account.



Out Too Soon said:


> It's heartless & cruel to turn away boat people.
> Shame on you Australia & shame on Cruddy for being such a weak wimp not standing up for human rights & instaed kow-towing to the media created xenophobes.



Not just picking out your post alone, Out Too Soon, but I always wonder why it is that the Left inevitably takes the moral high ground, implying that anyone who doesn't want to see everyone who decides they want to come to Australia without going through the standard application and assessment process, is cruel, heartless and without decency.

Could you perhaps clarify whether you would be happy to see no limit or conditions placed on whomever wants to come to Australia, whenever and by what means they want to come?


----------



## Chris45 (30 October 2009)

Julia said:


> Not just picking out your post alone, Out Too Soon, but I always wonder why it is that the Left inevitably takes the moral high ground, implying that anyone who doesn't want to see everyone who decides they want to come to Australia without going through the standard application and assessment process, is cruel, heartless and without decency.
> 
> Could you perhaps clarify whether you would be happy to see no limit or conditions placed on whomever wants to come to Australia, whenever and by what means they want to come?



Very good question Julia, and I’d also like to know what vision these people have for the future of this country.

I imagine they probably see a beautiful peaceful multicultural society with the nation’s wealth being spread around evenly so that no one has a care in the world. Everyone lives together happily and harmoniously and at weekends we all go dancing hand-in-hand through fields of daisies and lush green grass.


----------



## Calliope (30 October 2009)

derty said:


> I simply mistook it as you using a tenuous implication to make another jibe at Rudd.  While I am not a fan of Rudd, I am less of a fan of Howard and your lack of any impartiality within the political sphere is obvious.




It is never wise to jump to hasty conclusions.



Julia said:


> Calliope, I think you've caused some puzzlement about an apparent change of attitude since your first quoted post above.
> I, too, wondered if someone had hacked your account.




Puzzlement?  I see no contradiction. In the first post I was referring to migrant *selection* mainly with North Africa in mind. Boat people on the other hand mainly select themselves. 

That said, it is good to see that you and derty are vigilant about hackers.


----------



## mellifuous (30 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> I imagine they probably see a beautiful peaceful multicultural society with the nation’s wealth being spread around evenly so that no one has a care in the world. Everyone lives together happily and harmoniously and at weekends we all go dancing hand-in-hand through fields of daisies and lush green grass.




Now that  I've lost all my money,   that's what I want too...

I don't believe it, I'm thinking like a boat person....

Maybe it would be better if I go get a loan from a loan shark, fly to Idon, pay a bribe, and come to Aussie  on a boat ... 

and, WOW, all those free lawyers would take my case all the way to the high court.

I can't think of any way to get free legals except to go for a boat ride.

What is really great, is that hard working Australians will pay for it.

Merry xmas...


----------



## Chris45 (30 October 2009)

Hey mellifuous... that’s a good point! Maybe these “refugees” are actually a bunch of Storm Financial victims who lost their houses and owe money and are now trying to get a free house and generous financial support.


----------



## mellifuous (30 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Hey mellifuous... that’s a good point! Maybe these “refugees” are actually a bunch of Storm Financial victims who lost their houses and owe money and are now trying to get a free house and generous financial support.




Could be, there's a rumor that all the flights from Townsville and Brisbane to Jakarta are all filled up ..  you might be right...

I'm dreaming of a new 'gimme' apartment, regular income, subsidized phone, health card, free legals, ethnic affairs support --- ops they mightn't give me that because my grandparents are from England..  how unfair.

Still, even if Ethnic Affairs won't pay for the dartboard, I might be able to enjoy the Chinese fireworks, or Sri Lankan curry nites, but no Guy Fawkes night.

No problems for those free spirited Australians who just love to pay the  costs for all of us lost souls, for years, and years, and years.

On the other hand,  these new 'boat people' might just end up being great  competition for Indian restaurant owners.

That's right, immigration has given us a lot of eateries.

Gud onya Aussies...


----------



## Tink (31 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> I imagine they probably see a beautiful peaceful multicultural society with the nation’s wealth being spread around evenly so that no one has a care in the world. Everyone lives together happily and harmoniously and at weekends we all go dancing hand-in-hand through fields of daisies and lush green grass.




Sounds good to me : )

Having a negative outlook everytime there is a change in society, doesnt help anyone.


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2009)

Rudd's credibility on Border Protection is on the line. Will he submit to the Tamils' sit-down strike, or will he show some backbone?

The whole situation is now a complete farce. For the cost of this operation we could give each of the 78 a $100,000 hand out and take them home where they could live like kings.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26282995-7583,00.html



> As Smith signalled, this is a case of asylum-seekers trying to decide what country will process their claims and what country will become their new home if those claims are upheld. Asylum-seekers have no such rights under the 1951 Refugee Convention. The situation is exactly the reverse of the interpretation given wide currency this week. Far from Australia ignoring its obligations under the convention, the asylum-seekers are insisting on rights they do not possess under the convention.
> 
> It is obvious what should happen: if the Sri Lankans are serious about being refugees they should leave the boat immediately and claim refugee status from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.
> 
> ...


----------



## mellifuous (31 October 2009)

Calliope said:


> Rudd's credibility on Border Protection is on the line. Will he submit to the Tamils' sit-down strike, or will he show some backbone?
> 
> The whole situation is now a complete farce. For the cost of this operation we could give each of the 78 a $100,000 hand out and take them home where they could live like kings.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26282995-7583,00.html




http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26284768-421,00.html

"...  For the cost of this operation we could give each of the 78 a $100,000 hand out and take them home where they could live like kings. ..."

Or, they could give me the $7.8m and I'd live like a king.


----------



## nomore4s (31 October 2009)

Happy said:


> We write pages and pages of crap that will not influence our leaders who have democratically elected license to do as they please.
> 
> 
> Just hope, we will not have Bali or 9/11 on our soil !




Are you serious?

Letting boat people in is going to lead to a 9/11 or Bali style bombing?


----------



## mellifuous (31 October 2009)

nomore4s said:


> Are you serious?
> 
> Letting boat people in is going to lead to a 9/11 or Bali style bombing?




I hope not, but shouldn't the air force keep the F-111s for a little while longer, just in case?

And if they do, then they'll be able to do some more nighttime fuel dumps down along the Brissie River.

See, we really should look on the bright side (of life).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHPOzQzk9Qo


----------



## nomore4s (31 October 2009)

I'm mildly surprised at how many unsympathetic and selfish people there are around.

Some of the comments here are pretty sad imo. You would think these boat people are leaving nice, stable lives and are coming here for a free ride. Most of these people are leaving behind atrocious living conditions in hope for a better life with chances they could be dead before they even reach here and if they do reach here be sent straight back home. They could also end up in debt to the people smugglers who they might be paying back for the rest of their lives. And most of them do this to give their families & children a chance at better lives.

From my experience most of the ones who are lucky enough to stay end up contributing a great deal to our society and put in a lot of work to make the most of the opportunity given to them.

I'm not saying let them all in or have no entry requirements etc etc, because tbh I don't have all the answers. I just would have thought there would be a bit more understanding and compassion for people who are a lot worse off then us and are desperate to escape to a better life. If any of us were in the same positions would we be any different? I don't think so.


----------



## Calliope (31 October 2009)

The great juggling act.


----------



## pilots (31 October 2009)

Nomore4s, if we had room to spare in our hospitals, schools, and the like this would be good, BUT we don't. They have passed 4 country's to get here, none of them have a war going on, why do they want to come here??? the land of milk and honey, and WELFARE. SEND ALL OF THEM HOME.


----------



## mellifuous (31 October 2009)

nomore4s said:


> If any of us were in the same positions would we be any different? I don't think so.




And if any of them were in our position would they be any different than we are? I don't think so either.

Is Sri Lanka a bad place anyway? http://www.srilankatourism.org/

I might be wrong, but I'd guess that Sri Lankans who have come here through the proper processes would not be happy about seeing what these folk are doing.

Australia allows a set number of people in, and those in the boats could be part of that - they're just queue jumpers.

Of course, everyone wants a better life, but we  have laws - laws against theft prohibit me from stealing my neighbor's crops or livestock - Australia has immigration laws which prohibit particular behavior.

Lastly, these queue jumpers cost us money - in Brisbane Ms. Blight is selling off the family jewels, in Sydney it's no better.   Our hospitals are underfunded, and yet, all these folk come to us in boats at great expense to us - money that could go to benefit our own families.

I'd put mine before theirs anytime of the day.

Even Senator Fielder has misgivings about supporting Labour's amendments to the immigration act.

http://www.stevefielding.com.au/news/details/immigration_laws_encouraging_people_smugglers_fielding/

Look at the cost, why doesn't he dip into his pocket to help  pay for the debacle - after all, he contributed to it - after all, he's 'Family First', but, whose family does he put first?


----------



## nomore4s (31 October 2009)

pilots said:


> Nomore4s, if we had room to spare in our hospitals, schools, and the like this would be good, BUT we don't. They have passed 4 country's to get here, none of them have a war going on, why do they want to come here??? the land of milk and honey, and WELFARE. SEND ALL OF THEM HOME.




Pilots you've missed the point of my post, I'm not saying let them in or greet them with open arms. Like I said I have no idea of how best to handle them.

It's just some of the comments highlight to me what sort of society we are becoming and I find it pretty sad really.


----------



## noco (31 October 2009)

The Sri Lankan Government states there no reason for them to have left in the first place and have given them assurance they will not be ostracizsed on their return.

If the Sri Lankan Government can give Australia, the United Nations, the UNHCR and the rest of the world this assurance in some formal documentation, I say send them back to Sri Lanka.

With regards  to  Afghan and Pakistan illegal immigrants, I would suggest to Mr. Rudd, bring to Australia, give them 6 months Army training and send them back to fight the Taliban, with a reminder that our Aussies are over there doing their fighting for them.

Shoe some GUTZ and leadership Mr. Rudd.


----------



## Chris45 (31 October 2009)

nomore4s said:


> I just would have thought there would be a bit more understanding and compassion for people who are a lot worse off then us and are desperate to escape to a better life.



This is the sort of pathetically weak attitude that I just can’t understand!!! 

There are currently two boats with Tamil ‘refugees’ *demanding* to be allowed into Australia. If we go soft now and allow them in, what message does that send to the millions of other asylum seekers, not to mention the *billions* of other poor people around the world, desperately wishing for a better life? Already more than 90% of the 'queue jumping' asylum seekers who come to Australia illegally by boat win refugee status, at the expense of others who are trying to do the right thing by applying at an embassy and patiently waiting their turn. My sympathies are definitely with this latter group.

So, say we let this lot of Tamils in without question. The Indo fisherman, who make small fortunes from each boatload of impatient and aggressive goodlifeseekers will be spurred to encourage more and more of them to make their way down. What an excellent way for the Indos to get rid of their leaky old fishing boats and replace them with nice brand new ones, maybe even with special provision for paying passengers. So, as the word quickly spreads that we Australians are a really soft and incredibly generous bunch of fools, the current trickle of boats will rapidly increase to a flood. The message will go out to every goodlifeseeker around the world to forget about the embassies, just burn all of your documents and make your way to Australian waters by what ever way you can. Let them know when you arrive and make sure you have some young children with you who can be taught to make tearful appeals to the media which will tug at the heartstrings of the limp-wristed loony lefties, and these wonderful Aussies will send a nice beautiful ship to pick you up and take to their ‘promised land’. 

No, adopting a soft attitude now would be sheer insanity! Forget about our population reaching 35 million by 2050. We would reach that figure before 2015!!!

I agree with what noco said and I would like the Rudd government to be very firm with these Tamils and all other future boat people. These Tamils should now be given two choices: either you disembark now or we take you back to Sri Lanka.


----------



## Julia (31 October 2009)

nomore4s said:


> Pilots you've missed the point of my post, I'm not saying let them in or greet them with open arms. Like I said I have no idea of how best to handle them.
> 
> It's just some of the comments highlight to me what sort of society we are becoming and I find it pretty sad really.



In all fairness, nomore4s, I think you, in turn, have missed the point of some of the posts you're objecting to.

No one is saying they're leaving a life of milk and honey, but you could look at millions of people whose lives are not as good as we have here.
Why does that mean you should not apply for admission to Australia by the established UNHCR channels?  How is that fair to the people who have been patiently waiting their turn?

This is, as far as I can tell, what many posters here are on about, myself included.

You say that you have no idea how best to handle them.  So, to be quite fair to those you are criticising for their lack of compassion, I'd suggest you need to think about it a bit more and come up with some way of ensuring
that your desire to be compassionate doesn't unreasonably penalise Australians who have been, e.g., waiting years for dental treatment, non-emergency hospital care, somewhere to live.

Do you think Australia should be building accommodation to house immigrants from boats or via air (doesn't matter which imo), while we continue to have thousands of Australians homeless?

Or perhaps you'd like to see taxes doubled to pay for all this extra care when - as would be totally inevitable if there are no limits on admitting anyone who wants to come - the hundreds turn into millions.


----------



## Wysiwyg (31 October 2009)

There must be a word being passed around that it is possible to get through. These people are directed here by shepherds it would seem. For a small fee of course.


----------



## nomore4s (31 October 2009)

Julia said:


> In all fairness, nomore4s, I think you, in turn, have missed the point of some of the posts you're objecting to.




Julia, I'm not objecting to all the views posted on this subject more to some of the comments made, and again I'm not saying we should take them in.

My posts might have come across the wrong way. I'm not saying we are showing a lack of compassion by not letting them in or making it difficult for them to obtain residence here.

What I was saying is that *some* of the comments on here have be lacking some compassion and understanding of their situation and how desperate most boat people are, that's all. Maybe my background and people I grew up with have given me a different outlook to most here.

Most of the responses to my posts have responded in the same vein so it is obvious my posts didn't come across the right way. I'm under no illusions about the infrastructure problems facing Australia and again I'm not saying let them in or open our doors to everyone who wants to land on our shores because there is no doubt we can't afford to do that.


----------



## nomore4s (31 October 2009)

Julia said:


> No one is saying they're leaving a life of milk and honey, but you could look at millions of people whose lives are not as good as we have here.
> Why does that mean you should not apply for admission to Australia by the established UNHCR channels?  How is that fair to the people who have been patiently waiting their turn?
> 
> This is, as far as I can tell, what many posters here are on about, myself included.




As far as I can tell my posts haven't disagreed with any of this and it was not what I was objecting to.



> You say that you have no idea how best to handle them.  So, to be quite fair to those you are criticising for their lack of compassion, I'd suggest you need to think about it a bit more and come up with some way of ensuring
> that your desire to be compassionate doesn't unreasonably penalise Australians who have been, e.g., waiting years for dental treatment, non-emergency hospital care, somewhere to live.
> 
> Do you think Australia should be building accommodation to house immigrants from boats or via air (doesn't matter which imo), while we continue to have thousands of Australians homeless?
> ...




Again I'm not sure how all this was drawn from my posts, I thought I had stated quite clearly that I wasn't saying take them all in no matter what the consequences would be.

It is starting to become obvious to me that when I said more understanding and compassion it has been taken as - we should let them all in.


----------



## Julia (31 October 2009)

nomore4s said:


> It is starting to become obvious to me that when I said more understanding and compassion it has been taken as - we should let them all in.



OK, I think I am starting to get it:  you don't like the way some people have been categorical about not wanting these people here, and you find these people unkind and lacking in decency for not expressing sympathy to the boat people?

So - and I'm just trying to understand what exactly you *are* wanting to say here - you would like us to be sorry for them, understanding of their desire to come here to live, but to turn the boats back?

If I still have this wrong, could you clarify exactly how you would like Australia (the government) to handle the present situation and any future arrivals.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, I know you to be a decent and thoughtful person, so I'm just trying to get some clear understanding of what those on the left think should be Australia's plan to handle this situation.


----------



## mellifuous (31 October 2009)

Chris45 said:


> These Tamils should now be given two choices: either you disembark now or we take you back to Sri Lanka.




Great idea - but, make sure the 'Oceanic Viking' tows a bloody big net behind it to jag all the rest of the boats heading this way.

Sort of 'trawling for tamils' - might even get a few nice fish.


----------



## Tink (1 November 2009)

nomore4s said:


> I'm mildly surprised at how many unsympathetic and selfish people there are around.
> 
> Some of the comments here are pretty sad imo. You would think these boat people are leaving nice, stable lives and are coming here for a free ride. Most of these people are leaving behind atrocious living conditions in hope for a better life with chances they could be dead before they even reach here and if they do reach here be sent straight back home. They could also end up in debt to the people smugglers who they might be paying back for the rest of their lives. And most of them do this to give their families & children a chance at better lives.
> 
> ...




Good post nomore4s - I agree with you

As I said up above, its always the same rigmarole (thanks Wayne) when it comes to immigration in this country, but then we are paying baby bonuses to fill it.


----------



## mellifuous (1 November 2009)

Tink said:


> Good post nomore4s - I agree with you
> 
> As I said up above, its always the same rigmarole (thanks Wayne) when it comes to immigration in this country, but then we are paying baby bonuses to fill it.




good point Tink, no point continuing on our own generations when we can bring in different races/cultures/religions. 

thinking about it, it does seem quite stupid to encourage women to have babies, have them grow up mostly educated and integrated.  The cost must be enormous. 

the boat people are mostly all grown up and ready to go.

you're right, dump the baby bonus and bring in the boat people.

quite logical when it's thought out.


----------



## Tink (1 November 2009)

mellifuous said:


> good point Tink, no point continuing on our own generations when we can bring in different races/cultures/religions.




Why, do you live in their house?

What do you care what people do?

If it doesnt affect you and they are working, then its none of your business.


----------



## caribean (1 November 2009)

I find it very hard to read all these comments and not reply, you know the funniest thing about this whole argument is :most of our ancestors were boat people 

Nomore4's, i agree with your comments .

Baby bonus?? you have got to be joking!


----------



## mellifuous (1 November 2009)

Tink said:


> Why, do you live in their house?
> 
> What do you care what people do?
> 
> If it doesnt affect you and they are working, then its none of your business.




Tink,

I responded to what I thought was a carefully thought out argument.

Your questions herein are thought provoking and deserve careful consideration.

I'll try to answer them in context with the thread, but forgive me if I'm unable to do so.


----------



## noco (1 November 2009)

Those 78 Sri Lankans on the Oceanic Viking who state they left Sri Lanka since the Tamil Tigers were defeated, have been living in Indonesia for years according to the latest Sky News this morning.

Just might be what  KRudd is looking for to let him off the hook. No doubt he will insist they are  Indonesia's responsibility.

Who knows what this will lead to in relations between Australia and Indonesia!!!!???


----------



## Tink (1 November 2009)

mellifuous said:


> Tink,
> 
> I responded to what I thought was a carefully thought out argument.
> 
> ...




Thats fine.

Maybe we should follow those 500,000 bonuses they handed out *just this year* and see how many do so well as you say


----------



## Tink (1 November 2009)

caribean said:


> I find it very hard to read all these comments and not reply, you know the funniest thing about this whole argument is :most of our ancestors were boat people




well said


----------



## mellifuous (1 November 2009)

Tink said:


> Thats fine.
> 
> Maybe we should follow those 500,000 bonuses they handed out *just this year* and see how many do so well as you say




oh, no.. let's not give out anymore bonuses, they don't deserve them  .. let's just let the boat people in.

I'm all for compassion (please disregard my statements about 'tow the tamils', fire up the F-111s)

I'm a new convert to transferring millions of non-descripts from Sri Lanka to Australia.

I've seen the light. I've become compassionate.

Opps, I forgot, how about all those poor Chinese women who are forced to have abortions - we should bring them here too..  Should we allow them in with their families? but not give them the bonus.

And wait, there's more.. and more .. and more.. 

But, you're right, it's best to be compassionate.


----------



## Julia (1 November 2009)

Tink said:


> Good post nomore4s - I agree with you
> 
> As I said up above, its always the same rigmarole (thanks Wayne) when it comes to immigration in this country, but then we are paying baby bonuses to fill it.



Tink, you've separately said that you like the idea of big populations.
Do you have faith that state and federal governments will adequately supply the infrastructure to support a population which is more than double what we have now?  You know, those things that are causing us worry at present like not enough water, gridlocked traffic in our cities, dysfunctional public transport, inadequate and increasingly dysfunctional health system, etc?

Obviously allowing the current 78 people to come into Australia isn't going to make any difference to anything in a purely practical sense.  But what is concerning some people is the question of establishing this as a precedent, whereupon asylum seekers the world over will see Australia as an easy access new home.

So are you OK with that?  Do you want to see unlimited access for anyone at all into Australia?  Where will all these people be accommodated (a) while they are being checked, and then (b) while they are learning English, trying to find work etc?   Are you happy for us to pay considerably more tax to fund all this, plus the building of the additional infrastructure?

Don't you think just allowing anyone who dictates that they will only disembark a ship if it's into Australia, nowhere else, even just for processing, is a bit unfair to those people who have been waiting for years in a refugee camp somewhere, having applied to come to Australia in the conventional way?

I'm all for assisting genuine refugees to come to Australia and giving them every possible assistance.  But I'm uncomfortable when people - in any area of life - try to circumvent a system that others in good faith have followed.


----------



## mellifuous (1 November 2009)

Julia said:


> I'm all for assisting genuine refugees to come to Australia and giving them every possible assistance.  But I'm uncomfortable when people - in any area of life - try to circumvent a system that others in good faith have followed.




Are you for supporting the millions of women who are forced to have abortions in China every year?

Do you realise how many 'genuine' refugees there are in this world?

There are millions and millions of people who would be properly called 'refugees'.

It's clear we can't bring everyone here - so, how do we 'cull'?

Do we accept the ignorant because they are they most in need, or the physically deformed, or those who have terminal illnesses like aids? there are millions in africa.

Surely compassion should go to the most needy?

Our tax rates (if we pay them) are amongst the highest in the world that's because we're a socialist country and wealth is spread .. so, get prepared to spread a bit more --

remember, we've this wonder tax exercise arising out of the 'climate change' once known as 'global warming' - global warming suffered a bit when it was found the earth was cooling, but climate change should be a sound basis for a tax since the climate is always changing.

The costs of electricity and water are rising - rego is rising, insurance is rising, rates are rising, land tax is up.

then you're got governments selling utilities which in the end simply cost us all more in the future.

Couple that with a proportion of australians who couldn't work if they were connected to iron lungs.

remember too that we'll need more hospitals and we can't afford the ones we have - more transport, schools, special care .. no problems, ruddy dud dud will fix it - more tax.

This is the wonderful new age of being compassionate.

Let's enjoy it - I'm pleased I'm not paying much tax these days ...

Just wait for the taxes to come on the rich, then they'll leave.. and then what will it be? The middle class looking after the poor.

Soon it'll be the compassionate looking after the poor - the way god meant it to be.


----------



## Chris45 (1 November 2009)

caribean said:


> you know the funniest thing about this whole argument is :most of our ancestors were boat people



True, and they arrived here under a *very* orderly and disciplined immigration system.


----------



## Wysiwyg (1 November 2009)

...







> So are you OK with that? Do you want to see unlimited access for anyone at all into Australia? This already exists across the Tasman. Where will all these people be accommodated (a) while they are being checked, and then (b) while they are learning English, trying to find work etc?"Robots" has a portfolio of well regarded properties in which modest rental rates are charged and English education could be as simple as grasping the correct pronunciation of "fish and chips". Work is not really required due to our generous social security system so no need to look for any. Besides that they don't need to upset the locals by taking their jobs. Are you happy for us to pay considerably more tax to fund all this, plus the building of the additional infrastructure?That is a nice thought and would make a lot of people happy.



...


----------



## Julia (1 November 2009)

mellifuous said:


> Are you for supporting the millions of women who are forced to have abortions in China every year?



No, but I'd support some funding for contraception advice.



> Do you realise how many 'genuine' refugees there are in this world?
> 
> There are millions and millions of people who would be properly called 'refugees'.
> 
> It's clear we can't bring everyone here - so, how do we 'cull'?



As you quite well would know, the government allocates a quota of available refugee places each year.  This is what I was supporting.  Presumably these numbers are decided on the basis of how capable our infrastructure is of supporting various immigration levels.

With regard to your other points, they're concerns I've already expressed if you'd quoted my past remarks in their entirety rather than picking out one sentence away from its context.


----------



## mellifuous (1 November 2009)

Julia said:


> No, but I'd support some funding for contraception advice.




They want to have children - they intentionally get pregnant but are forced to abort - are you suggesting you would 'educate' them by convincing them to adopt a form of sterilization?


----------



## mellifuous (1 November 2009)

Tink said:


> I do feel for them as where are they to go?




Would back home be okay?


----------



## bigdog (1 November 2009)

*What will Kevin do now!!*

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/br...ing-in-indonesia/story-e6frf7k6-1225793185850

*Asylum seekers admit living in Indonesia *
AAP November 01, 2009 4:49AM 

IT'S been revealed that most of the Sri Lankan asylum seekers in a standoff with Australian authorities off Indonesia's Bintan Island have admitted living in Indonesia for years, providing the Rudd Government with leverage to convince Indonesia to take them back. 

Indonesia's senior official in charge of the matter, Sujatmiko, said he was unaware of the history of the asylum seekers but asked that all information be passed to him as a matter of urgency, Fairfax newspapers reported. 

In written messages thrown off the Oceanic Viking, the Australian customs ship that has been home to the 78 ethnic Tamils for the past two weeks, the asylum seekers said they had been living in Indonesia for as long as five years and had been accepted by the United Nations office in Jakarta as genuine refugees. 

They said they engaged a people smuggler because of their frustrations that no country would accept them, leaving them to sit in limbo in rented accommodation in Indonesia, unable to work or study. 

*The message insisted the Sri Lankans had arrived in Indonesia "normally". *

Part of the Indonesian justification for not taking the Sri Lankans is that they are refusing to be registered by their immigration officials. But it appears that they already have been. 

The United Nations High Commission for Refugees doesn't process asylum seekers unless they have been registered first, Fairfax says. 

Yesterday's development came as the Federal Government announced a doubling of the capacity of the Christmas Island immigration detention centre as it braces for more boat arrivals.


----------



## Julia (1 November 2009)

mellifuous said:


> They want to have children - they intentionally get pregnant but are forced to abort - are you suggesting you would 'educate' them by convincing them to adopt a form of sterilization?



If they know they will have to abort a child, why do they get pregnant?
The population control policy of China is well known worldwide, so I can hardly believe it's not equally well known to China's own citizens.

This topic is, anyway, less than relevant to the thread, and I don't have any further comment about the procreation lives of the Chinese.


----------



## Tink (2 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Tink, you've separately said that you like the idea of big populations.
> Do you have faith that state and federal governments will adequately supply the infrastructure to support a population which is more than double what we have now?  You know, those things that are causing us worry at present like not enough water, gridlocked traffic in our cities, dysfunctional public transport, inadequate and increasingly dysfunctional health system, etc?
> 
> Obviously allowing the current 78 people to come into Australia isn't going to make any difference to anything in a purely practical sense.  But what is concerning some people is the question of establishing this as a precedent, whereupon asylum seekers the world over will see Australia as an easy access new home.
> ...




Hi Julia

Seems this thread has finished now, but regarding your infrastructure question, yes I think they will. They have to, as Australia's population is growing whether we want it to or not. 

As for the boat people, I can understand what you are saying and I do agree, that they should go through the right avenues and be processed, but, if they are real refugees that really did jump on a boat and left out of danger, I dont think the comments were appropriate. 

Maybe they couldnt get on a plane and out. I suppose its looking at the whole picture, not just rambling off, with no thought in how they got there in the first place.

Anyways looks like they are Indonesians


----------



## Julia (2 November 2009)

Tink said:


> Hi Julia
> 
> Seems this thread has finished now, but regarding your infrastructure question, yes I think they will. They have to, as Australia's population is growing whether we want it to or not.



The thread is finished???
You seem to have a blind faith in governments to assume they will keep pace with the necessary infrastructure.  It's hard to see why you'd feel this way, given their track record.




> As for the boat people, I can understand what you are saying and I do agree, that they should go through the right avenues and be processed, but, if they are real refugees that really did jump on a boat and left out of danger, I dont think the comments were appropriate.



There seem to be few who have left urgently and because of immediate danger.  These ones now claim they have been living in Indonesia for five years and just became a bit tired of waiting.




> Maybe they couldnt get on a plane and out. I suppose its looking at the whole picture, not just rambling off, with no thought in how they got there in the first place.



Huh?  What do you mean?




> Anyways looks like they are Indonesians



Really?  That's news.  Could you provide a link to that?


----------



## Chris45 (2 November 2009)

The pressure is mounting! The goodlife seekers are now threatening to commit suicide unless their demands are met and, no doubt, the limp-wristed lefties will be beside themselves with anguish.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/02/2730092.htm?section=australia

Where is their compassion for the thousands of law abiding refugees who are following the correct procedure and patiently waiting for their cases to be assessed by the UNHCR? No, it’s definitely the ‘squeaky hinges’ that get all of the left’s attention these days.

The AWU National Secretary, Paul Howes, and ACTU president, Sharan Burrow, are leading the bleeding heart brigade’s efforts to bring these people in. Years ago the unions ran xenophobic campaigns against foreign workers taking “Aussie jobs” but they now see these people as potential union members to boost their dwindling numbers, and also potential allies in the continuing fight against the conservatives. What a bunch of hypocrites they are!!!


----------



## mellifuous (2 November 2009)

Chris45 said:


> The pressure is mounting! The goodlife seekers are now threatening to commit suicide unless their demands are met and, no doubt, the limp-wristed lefties will be beside themselves with anguish.




I was going to post "wow, will they put it on tv? or send in an F-111 to be kind to them?",
but I decided not to.

In a strange twisted way, the money spent on these misfits could be money taken from a hospital some where in Australia - life for life.. and so it goes on.

let's hope other consumers don't behave this way when they don't get what they pay for.


----------



## Chris45 (2 November 2009)

mellifuous said:


> I was going to post "wow, will they put it on tv? or send in an F-111 to be kind to them?", but I decided not to.



Yes, I'm glad you didn't post that.  Good one!

*http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/02/2730441.htm*



> There are grave fears for 21 people missing after their boat sank hundreds of nautical miles off the Cocos Islands. ... AMSA received a distress signal yesterday morning with reports *the boat had a hole in the bottom* and was taking on water.




Hmmm. I wonder if there were any submarines (not ours of course) in the area at the time?


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 November 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Hmmm. I wonder if there were any submarines (not ours of course) in the area at the time?




I take it your mother and father weren't on board.


----------



## pilots (2 November 2009)

The boat people are getting smart now, just sail close to us, send out a distress call and as soon as you see a boat coming sink your tub. Look out Australia, THEY ARE COMING,: and this government is not going to stop them.


----------



## mellifuous (2 November 2009)

Chris45 said:


> Yes, I'm glad you didn't post that.  Good one!
> 
> *http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/02/2730441.htm*
> 
> ...


----------



## pilots (2 November 2009)

We have just sent the new jet the flying doctors have just been given, up north to look for survivors from a sinking tub, good to know we have all that money to spare.


----------



## mellifuous (2 November 2009)

pilots said:


> We have just sent the new jet the flying doctors have just been given, up north to look for survivors from a sinking tub, good to know we have all that money to spare.




well, the way to solve it is ... 'hands up those who want to support them'...

and when the hands come up ... $2,000 each thanks...

it just might make it hard for me to make donations to the F.D. in the future.

let the government pay for it.


----------



## Calliope (2 November 2009)

Paul Sheehan in the SMH; 



> The 78 ethnic Tamils who have illegally occupied the Australian customs vessel Oceanic Viking are demanding rights that do not exist under international law. Most have been in Indonesia for some time. They want to settle in Australia, or another wealthy country, but that decision is not theirs to make.
> 
> The Oceanic Viking needs to be reclaimed, secured, prepared for sea, then sail for Sri Lanka with the 78 recalcitrants on board. They have rejected Indonesia. Anything less is a capitulation to moral blackmail, where children have been used as props and pawns. The impasse is not a test of rights but a test of wills. The prolonging of the Oceanic Viking saga has shown Rudd to be a man who seeks to be all things to all people



.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/migration-the-true-story-20091101-hrjq.html


----------



## Julia (2 November 2009)

mellifuous said:


> We should think about the cost of this business the  next time we see someone die in hospital due to lack of resources, or of a person smitten with a disease the government is not prepared to spend money on, or a grieving war widow and her family left in isolation.
> 
> Charity is supposed to begin at home - but it doesn't.



I'm not sure that this thread is the right place for this comment, but I'm reminded from the above of an item in ABC Radio's "PM" programme this evening where the government has removed the $20 subsidy from Medicare for people who need cortisone injections to manage their arthritis pain.
OK to toss out $900 cheques to be spent on anything at all for most of the population, but when it comes to clawing back the Budget position, then essential health services get the chop. 




Calliope said:


> Paul Sheehan in the SMH;



Paul Sheehan's comments are succinct and entirely appropriate.
The government is looking inept and indecisive and needs to take a stand.


----------



## Happy (4 November 2009)

I think we should look after our own first, this is our Government's utmost first responsibility UN agreement or not!

And list of things that are not right in Australia is quite long.


----------



## bigdog (6 November 2009)

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/its-rudds-fatal-shore/story-e6frfhqf-1225794867198

*This Andrew Bolt article Nov 6  (very long)  includes the following statements:*

The Oceanic Viking Tamils were rescued by Australia last month after issuing a fake SOS from their ship, after reportedly drilling holes in the hull.

Likewise, 42 Afghans were rescued in April at Ashmore Reef and even granted permanent residency here after blowing up their own boat, killing five.

How compassionate we were both times. And foolishly so, in the case of the Afghans, who can now stay despite refusing to say which of them set off the deadly explosion.

But now check the price of this compassion.

The Government has just ordered a coroner's inquiry into the deaths on Sunday of the 12 Sri Lankans to find why their boat suddenly capsized off the Cocos Islands, just as they and 27 others were about to be rescued in Australian search-and-rescue territory.

Why the inquiry? Because some of those involved in the rescue claim the Sri Lankans may have deliberately sunk their own boat. Plus, of course, an inquiry lets Rudd say "no comment" in the meantime.


----------



## Julia (6 November 2009)

The Tamils on the Oceanic Viking have apparently given their 'final decision' that they will not accept going to Indonesia and 'will be staying on the boat'.
This is despite being offered guaranteed resettlement within one year.

So they think they can indefinitely use a customs vessel as a guesthouse and dictate where they will go?

I can't believe they are getting away with this.


----------



## noco (6 November 2009)

Julia said:


> The Tamils on the Oceanic Viking have apparently given their 'final decision' that they will not accept going to Indonesia and 'will be staying on the boat'.
> This is despite being offered guaranteed resettlement within one year.
> 
> So they think they can indefinitely use a customs vessel as a guesthouse and dictate where they will go?
> ...




Yes Julia I agree, so much for Rudd's agreement with the President of  Indonesia.

As I understand the international law and correct me if I am wrong, if a ship goes to the rescue of a boat in distress in Indonesian waters, they are obliged to discharge the rescued people in that country. So the Ocean Viking has done the right thing, the problem is Indonesia and the 78 Sri Lankans have out smarted Kevin Rudd.

Indonesia really does not want them, so it left to the local Government to make the decision. Now the local Government of the Island where the Ocean Viking is anchored say they can't force the Sri Lankans off the boat. Sorry, it looks like it's Australia's responsibility. Poor Ruddy has been done over like a proverbial dinner and he has no idea what to do. If he uses force to remove them, he is inhumane. If he takes them to Christmas Island, he is not the tough guy he makes himself out to be. Once again all spin. He says the UNHCR have already processed them, but the UNHCR have denied they have.

Why did the Indonesians direct the Ocean Viking to a remote  Island in the first place. One does not have to be rocket scientist to figure that out.


----------



## Riddick (6 November 2009)

I find it hard to believe that we don't seem to have the strength, committment or cojones to force a bunch of people off a boat.

Maybe we should get a bunch of bouncers from any city pub/club in Australia, fly them to indonesia and get them to do the whole "sorry pal, not in those shoes, out you go..." seems like a pretty easy fix.

Don't send the them to Christmas Island, the place (I have been there a few times and dived for extended periods and have friends who still live on the island) does not need extra refugees, or people for that matter.

There is comapssion and then there is getting what you want. If we want our ship back simply throw them off. If you want to be the laughing stock of the planet because your whole border protection policy is exposed as the weak after thought is truly is, then by all means pander to the whims of a group of petulant self styled international orphans.

I wonder how long they would stay on board once we cut the food supply? It worked for the Russians at Stalingrad...

It is just me or am I the only one who can see this. Please don't quote my response if you are going to start an arguememt about "humanitarian needs" or "international responsibilities" or "fair go for the less fortunate". There has been enough of that style of arguement on ASF already, and you'd be better off by saving your valuable and irreplacable heartbeats than wasting you time appealing to my compassionate side.

Better still go and read Darwin, Malthus and Co

Ta


----------



## justjohn (6 November 2009)

How about we send old jelly spine RUDD onto the boat to say ''SORRY'' on our behalf or send GILLARD aboard wearing a short skirt ,that might scare the crap out of these poor half starved wreches.Just a thought


----------



## Riddick (6 November 2009)

justjohn said:


> How about we send old jelly spine RUDD onto the boat to say ''SORRY'' on our behalf or send GILLARD aboard wearing a short skirt ,that might scare the crap out of these poor half starved wreches.Just a thought




Julia Gillard in a short skirt. I just threw up into my mouth. Thanks JJ.


----------



## pilots (6 November 2009)

justjohn said:


> How about we send old jelly spine RUDD onto the boat to say ''SORRY'' on our behalf or send GILLARD aboard wearing a short skirt ,that might scare the crap out of these poor half starved wreches.Just a thought



That would have them swimming home, I know I would.


----------



## Calliope (7 November 2009)

We have a secret weapon;


----------



## Julia (7 November 2009)

Some of the letters to "The Australian":



> Letters Blog
> 
> 1. The Australian
> 2. Opinion
> ...


----------



## Chris45 (7 November 2009)

noco said:


> As I understand the international law and correct me if I am wrong, if a ship goes to the rescue of a boat in distress in Indonesian waters, they are obliged to discharge the rescued people in that country. So the Ocean Viking has done the right thing, the problem is Indonesia and the 78 Sri Lankans have out smarted Kevin Rudd.



I just wonder why we continue to pour *half a billion of our hard earned dollars* into Indonesia each year in the form of AusAID when they don’t seem to be prepared to do anything for us in return, even when they are obliged to under international law. They like our money, but they certainly don’t like us!

*http://www.indo.ausaid.gov.au/*



> Indonesia is the largest single recipient of Australian development assistance. Australia is committed to working in partnership with the Government of Indonesia to continue rebuilding efforts, after the December 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and to address longer term development challenges.
> 
> Australia will continue to focus on strengthening economic and financial management, building democratic institutions, promoting stability and security, and improving the quality of service delivery in Indonesia, particularly in the poorer eastern provinces.
> 
> Australia will provide A$3.8 billion in total official development assistance in 2009-10 through its aid budget, which focuses on helping partner countries, including Indonesia, address the impacts of the global recession




The Indonesians are very aggressive and duplicitous people and they outnumber us 10 to 1 so I suppose all of the money we give them is really a form of ‘protection money’. We can't afford to do anything to get them offside so I suppose we’ll just have to smile and continue to pay up while they continue to screw us. I think this old Bill Leak cartoon comes close to summing up our relationship with Indonesia.


----------



## Riddick (7 November 2009)

Chris45 said:


> I just wonder why we continue to pour *half a billion of our hard earned dollars* into Indonesia each year in the form of AusAID when they don’t seem to be prepared to do anything for us in return, even when they are obliged to under international law. They like our money, but they certainly don’t like us!
> 
> The Indonesians are very aggressive and duplicitous people and they outnumber us 10 to 1 so I suppose all of the money we give them is really a form of ‘protection money’. We can't afford to do anything to get them offside so I suppose we’ll just have to smile and continue to pay up while they continue to screw us. I think this old Bill Leak cartoon comes close to summing up our relationship with Indonesia.





What do you think the indonesians are likely to do to us? Invade us? Import their culture and overwhelm our way of life?
The last time I looked, military technology had moved beyond propeller driven war planes and wooden gunboats, and as for being overwhelmed by indonesian culture, there is only so much space available at beaches for pineapple sellers and purveyors of rip off watches and T shirts.

I mean seriously...


----------



## drsmith (7 November 2009)

pilots said:


> justjohn said:
> 
> 
> > How about we send old jelly spine RUDD onto the boat to say ''SORRY'' on our behalf or send GILLARD aboard wearing a short skirt ,that might scare the crap out of these poor half starved wreches.Just a thought
> ...



Or perhaps running across the top of it.


----------



## Chris45 (7 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> What do you think the indonesians are likely to do to us? Invade us? Import their culture and overwhelm our way of life?



So, if we have nothing to fear from them, why are we so generous to them when we get nothing from them in return???

And remember, both sides have been throwing money at them for years. I must confess I threw some of my money at them after the Boxing Day tsunami, a mistake I now regret and will never repeat!

I think if we fell out with them and things turned nasty, I don't know what they would do but they could certainly make life very difficult for us. There was a report recently that the Indo air force had purchased several Russian Sukhoi strike fighters which now gives them air superiority over us.

So, much better to continue paying our protection money and forcing ourselves to smile while they do their thing.


----------



## DVEOUS (7 November 2009)

I have a question... two actually.

What on earth do our expensive submarines do to fill in the day?
How much does a torpedo cost?


----------



## Riddick (7 November 2009)

Chris45 said:


> So, if we have nothing to fear from them, why are we so generous to them when we get nothing from them in return???
> 
> And remember, both sides have been throwing money at them for years. I must confess I threw some of my money at them after the Boxing Day tsunami, a mistake I now regret and will never repeat!
> 
> ...




We keep throwing money at them essentialy because Australians are a caring and compassionate lot. 

In terms of military superiority: The US and Australia still have an active defence cooperation treaty, essentially the lovechild of ANZUS, minus NZ of course (after the nuclear submarine incident some years ago)

Like it or loathe it, the US is still the superpower of the world. Under no circumstance would they allow anyone to launch any sort of attack on the Australian mainland. The have permanent bases here, and a pacific fleet. Indonesia is absolutely no military threat to them and by proxy to Australia.

If only on the basis of natural resources (ie securing our resources fot heir use) they would move swiftly in our defence. Not to mention the cultural conflict. Anyone who has been to the US will attest to their paranoia and the hardline christian mentality that dominates US domestic and foreign policies.

As a muslim nation, with little the US needs, who is not a trading partner and who is not part of any US alliances or treaties, the indonesians are not on the radar as threats or as friends. 

So really it comes down to access to regional markets. Our foreign aid pretty much becomes acess money. 300 million people is a big market and Australian businesses are active and make a lot of money in the region.

So close to our national doorstep it makes sense to have 'friendly' neighbours.

They are certainly no direct threat to us, but I agree, they can make our life difficult, and to be honest, a prickly relationship with us wouldn't be great for indonesia either. Certainly wouldn't hurt for us to give them a bit of the treatment they give us.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> So really it comes down to access to regional markets. Our foreign aid pretty much becomes acess money. 300 million people is a big market and Australian businesses are active and make a lot of money in the region.
> 
> So close to our national doorstep it makes sense to have 'friendly' neighbours.
> 
> They are certainly no direct threat to us, but I agree, they can make our life difficult, and to be honest, a prickly relationship with us wouldn't be great for indonesia either. Certainly wouldn't hurt for us to give them a bit of the treatment they give us.



Top quality post Riddick.


----------



## Chris45 (8 November 2009)

Yes, good points Riddick and I hope you’re right.

I wasn’t really thinking along the lines of the Indonesians launching an invasion, but considering how generous we are to them, I'm finding their reluctance to get serious about stopping these boat people very irritating.

Maybe we should adopt more of a quid pro quo approach and start reducing or postponing the aid until they get the message that they need to do things for us in return. So instead of offering them more money to build a detention center, we should be politely suggesting that if they want our money to continue to flow their way, they should use some of the money we are already giving them to build it.

I think we are far too 'caring and compassionate' for our own good but neither side seems to want to take a tougher line with the Indos so naturally they will continue to take the easy option of doing as little for us as possible. They certainly take a tough line with us.


----------



## bigdog (8 November 2009)

Tactics when you want to come to Australia!

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...-help-on-mobiles/story-e6frf7l6-1225795364009

*Asylum seekers call for help on mobiles *
By Carmel Melouney From: 
The Sunday Telegraph November 08, 2009 12:01AM 

ASYLUM seekers on boats have begun to use mobile phones to call the Australian Maritime Safety Authority directly in a bid to be rescued.

People aboard several boats have made multiple calls to AMSA and other government agencies, including Defence, stating they need help.

A spokesman for Home Affairs Minister Brendan O'Connor confirmed asylum seekers on a boat in Indonesian waters had been calling AMSA via mobile phones.

"Obviously AMSA would get a message, usually via radio, but people use whatever method they can," the spokesman said.

"I believe they contacted a number of authorities, including Defence and other government agencies.

"I am aware AMSA has been in direct contact with people on board a vessel and those people are now on the Oceanic Viking. People contacted authorities here and were put through to AMSA."

He said AMSA had also received a distress call from another vessel that subsequently sank, the 27 survivors from which were now on Christmas Island.

"You cannot be selective as to who you can respond too, AMSA is obliged to respond," he said.

A Customs Border Protection spokesman confirmed that on October 16 at 11.45pm, Australian authorities received calls from people on a boat saying they were in trouble. These calls came from the asylum seekers who are now aboard the Oceanic Viking.

The spokesman did not know how many calls were made, but confirmed there had been multiple calls.


----------



## Riddick (8 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Top quality post Riddick.






Chris45 said:


> Yes, good points Riddick and I hope you’re right.
> 
> I wasn’t really thinking along the lines of the Indonesians launching an invasion, but considering how generous we are to them, I'm finding their reluctance to get serious about stopping these boat people very irritating.
> 
> ...





Thanks you guys, I do have to admit though, and agree with you, that it is frustrating always seemingly on the recieving end. Maybe Australians should stop going to Bali for a couple of years? I realise this is petty, but it would send a message...

Great to see a lot of people with strong opinions on the matter. Maybe something will get done!


----------



## Nyden (8 November 2009)

Can't believe this nonsense has yet to be resolved. Throw them off of the boat, Indonesia doesn't want them? Then throw them into the water!


----------



## DVEOUS (8 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> I realise this is petty, but it would send a message...



Not petty at all.
The whole sub-continent knows Australia is an easy and soft target.
It wouldn't surprise me, if there was some printed "How to" manual out there, on getting into, and taking advantage of the Australian system.

As an Aussie taxpayer, I resent being taken advantage of.
The Indonesians treat us with contempt, despite the $billions of dollars of annual "aid" they receive from us.

Whilst there are always exceptions, most of these refos will end up in government housing, and on some sort of welfare or pension for the rest of their life.

How many refos have landed here since the Rudd government took office?
I heard 280,000.
Multiply that out to house, feed, and look after this lot, on top of all the bureaucracy, and it would be 100's of $millions of dollars annually.
I would rather money be spent on our ailing health system, roads and schools.

We should be sending bloody invoices back to the governments concerned, (Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Burma, etc) for our costs involved in dealing with THEIR problems.


----------



## bunyip (8 November 2009)

Barnaby Joyce has the right idea....take 'em back to Sri Lanka
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...-viking-to-sri-lanka-joyce-20091108-i365.html

There are many people in the world who want to come to Australia, speak perfect English, have skills that would allow them to slot straight into the Australian workforce, and whose religion, culture and values are compatible with our own.
Our government makes it quite difficult for these people to emigrate to Australia.
I personally know a couple of such people in Ireland and England, and one from Germany, who have been thwarted in their efforts to come down under.

But if you're a refugee who speaks no English, has little or no money or job skills or education, and your culture and values and religion clash with mainstream Australia, our government lays out the welcome mat for you.
It makes no sense at all.

This idiot Rudd dismantled the tough measures introduced by the Howard government to curb illegal immigration by boat people. 
Now the imbecile is scratching his head and wondering why the boat people problem is escalating out of control.


----------



## Chris45 (8 November 2009)

Riddick said:


> Maybe Australians should stop going to Bali for a couple of years? I realise this is petty, but it would send a message...



I went to Bali once, a year before the 2002 terrorist bombing, and had planned to go back again and tour Java with the aim of learning something about our muslim neighbours and also looking for a worthy struggling family I could assist. I was a naive ‘caring and compassionate’ person in those days. The 2002 and 2005 bombings plus the Corby case plus a few other well reported cases killed that plan stone dead after I realized how much hate there was for us and how tough their judiciary treated us. Also, it was reported on SBS that the governor of Bali had publically expressed his dislike for us because we drank too much beer and were too noisy and he was thinking of imposing a special tax on Australians to try and dissuade us from visiting. They want our money but they don’t want us! 

I now boycott Indonesia as best I can by refusing to buy anything that says “Made in Indonesia”. Two electrical appliances I bought that had been made in Indonesia turned out to be absolute junk so I figure I’m doing myself a favour by doing so. If you also feel strongly about the way they treat us, *I urge you to do likewise* and spread the word.


----------



## Chris45 (8 November 2009)

bunyip said:


> Barnaby Joyce has the right idea....take 'em back to Sri Lanka
> http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...-viking-to-sri-lanka-joyce-20091108-i365.html




Consider also this comment from Sri Lanka's Immigration Commissioner, PB Abeykoon: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...esents-boatpeople-solution-20091105-hydh.html



> "The people who are going through the boats are unskilled labourers, fisherman, farmers," he said. "They are not skilled labourers."



I'm starting to really like Barnaby Joyce and I think I know who my vote will be going to next election.


----------



## bunyip (8 November 2009)

justjohn said:


> How about we send old jelly spine RUDD onto the boat to say ''SORRY'' on our behalf or send GILLARD aboard wearing a short skirt ,that might scare the crap out of these poor half starved wreches.Just a thought




The sight of Julia Gillard in a short skirt would be enough to cower even the bravest heart!


----------



## pilots (9 November 2009)

I read this morning that Alex, the one who spoke good English on the boat, was DEPORTED from Canada, and had spent time in the slammer. Now is he the kind of people we want here Rudd.


----------



## Julia (9 November 2009)

Yes, I heard him interviewed on Radio National this morning.  He maintains he was "confused" at the time and he's quite different now.


----------



## Calliope (9 November 2009)

pilots said:


> I read this morning that Alex, the one who spoke good English on the boat, was DEPORTED from Canada, and had spent time in the slammer. Now is he the kind of people we want here Rudd.




You have to be pretty bad to be kicked out of Canada.  They are much more warm and fuzzy minded than us. Osama bin Laden could probably gain asylum there.



> FORMER Toronto gang member Sanjeev Kuhendrarajah is heavily tattooed, has a criminal record for death threats and firearms possession that got him deported from Canada six years ago, and is now, perhaps improbably, the articulate and thoughtful spokesman for a boatload of Tamil asylum-seekers trying to get to Christmas Island




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ex-steps-forward/story-e6frg6n6-1225795570337


----------



## pilots (9 November 2009)

Hell Alex could join the bikies, They are all ways looking for new members, we must be able to find some thing for him here.


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> You have to be pretty bad to be kicked out of Canada.  They are much more warm and fuzzy minded than us. Osama bin Laden could probably gain asylum there.
> 
> 
> > FORMER Toronto gang member Sanjeev Kuhendrarajah is heavily tattooed, has a criminal record for death threats and firearms possession that got him deported from Canada six years ago, and is now, perhaps improbably, the articulate and thoughtful spokesman for a boatload of Tamil asylum-seekers trying to get to Christmas Island



That is called dead agenting. The history of a target becomes scrutinised and any nasty or naughty bits are revealed to the public. Therefore they become a "dead agent". Good investigative journalism at work and will get a Christmas card from the Government.


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 November 2009)

pilots said:


> Hell Alex could join the bikies, They are all ways looking for new members, we must be able to find some thing for him here.



 How about opening a tattoo shop with a government grant.


----------



## Happy (9 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> How about opening a tattoo shop with a government grant.





How about letting him is so if things get really bad here, he can organise smuggling racket out of Australia!


----------



## pilots (9 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> That is called dead agenting. The history of a target becomes scrutinised and any nasty or naughty bits are revealed to the public. Therefore they become a "dead agent". Good investigative journalism at work and will get a Christmas card from the Government.




I cant see the government being happy about this at all, we now know that some of the boat people are trash, Ruddy now has to send him home.
This is NOT going to look good for mister goody two shoes.
I would like our government to pay for some one in Sri lanka from the government to come down here and take them home, they would be very happy to get some of them back.


----------



## noco (9 November 2009)

I've got a good idea, lets call it the Indian Ocean solution, put Barnby in charge so he can send the Oceanic Viking on its way to Sri Lanka for processing.

 As Rudd likes giving jobs to  Coalition politicians, he may as well, because  none of his Labor  ex union cronies have any idea what to do. Anybody game to ask KRudd to give Barnaby the job?


----------



## Julia (9 November 2009)

An amusing side issue which I haven't seen any media other than the ABC pick up on today was an announcement by a Rudd spokesperson that the offer had been made to the Tamils on the Oceanic Viking that if they would disembark in Indonesia, they wouldn't have to go to a detention centre, because the Australian and Indonesian governments have arranged for them to be housed in the community up there, and their resettlement applications would be fast-tracked.

It didn't take long for the Indonesian government to flatly contradict this and say under no circumstances would they be housed anywhere other than in a detention centre.

So, stalemate once again.


----------



## bellenuit (10 November 2009)

Julia said:


> An amusing side issue which I haven't seen any media other than the ABC pick up on today was an announcement by a Rudd spokesperson that the offer had been made to the Tamils on the Oceanic Viking that if they would disembark in Indonesia, they wouldn't have to go to a detention centre, because the Australian and Indonesian governments have arranged for them to be housed in the community up there, and their resettlement applications would be fast-tracked.
> 
> It didn't take long for the Indonesian government to flatly contradict this and say under no circumstances would they be housed anywhere other than in a detention centre.
> 
> So, stalemate once again.




What I find strange is that the Rudd government is saying at the same time that they will make no special concessions to those on board the Oceanic Viking to induce them to leave. What you posted clearly is a concession, as is their statement from a few days ago that if they disembarked in Indonesia their applications for asylum would be fast-tracked. That too is a concession as presumably those Sri Lankans that are waiting patiently in Indonesia for assessment and haven't tried to sneak into Australia are not being fast-tracked.


----------



## Calliope (10 November 2009)

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-viking-refugees/story-e6frg6nf-1225795930168



> "Let me be absolutely clear that that policy of ours, in the Australian national interest, will not be changed in response to any protests, any threats, any threats of harm, any threats of self-harm," the Prime Minister said.





> THE 78 asylum-seekers aboard the Oceanic Viking have been promised rapid resettlement in Australia, Canada or New Zealand but have refused to leave the Customs vessel if it means going back into immigration detention.





*Let me be absolutely clear,* Rudd is absolutely gutless.


----------



## Julia (10 November 2009)

bellenuit said:


> What I find strange is that the Rudd government is saying at the same time that they will make no special concessions to those on board the Oceanic Viking to induce them to leave. What you posted clearly is a concession, as is their statement from a few days ago that if they disembarked in Indonesia their applications for asylum would be fast-tracked. That too is a concession as presumably those Sri Lankans that are waiting patiently in Indonesia for assessment and haven't tried to sneak into Australia are not being fast-tracked.



Exactly.



Calliope said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...-viking-refugees/story-e6frg6nf-1225795930168
> *Let me be absolutely clear,* Rudd is absolutely gutless.



Grrr!  This now seems to be his new favourite phrase, destined to be uttered at least ten times a day.  He usually says it when he is most determined to obfuscate.


----------



## pilots (10 November 2009)

Julia, I am still missing the best one he had, WORKING FAMILIES.


----------



## bunyip (10 November 2009)

If we must have immigration to Australia, keep it for people who apply through legal channels and who have the job and language skills to slot immediately into our society without us having to pour money into teaching them English, training them for employment, and supplying them with their day to day needs in the meantime.

Anyone who is caught trying to get in illegally, send them straight back to where they came from. Put out the message loud and clear that if they don't go through the legal channels, we don't accept them.
We need to get rid of the bleeding heart mentality that dictates our immigration policy.
Sure, there are people around the world who are doing it tough because of poverty, civil war, dictatorial governments and a host of other reasons.
But that's not our fault, nor is it our responsibility to play nursemaid to them.

There are people right here in our own country who are doing it tough too. And we help them up to a point through our welfare system and through volunteer organizations etc.
But how far do you take your help. If you see a homeless person, do you, as a decent person yourself, invite them to live in the spare room in your home, feed them and look after them?
Well, some of you might, but most of us have the sense to realise that it's just not practical to do so, and in fact could be quite dangerous.

Well, it's no different with illegal immigrants. It's not practical to allow them to flock into our country, strain our budget, and put pressure on our health system, education system, and social welfare system which are already inadequate to meet the needs of our own people.
Nor is it particularly safe, given that many of them are from religions and cultures that have contempt for the religions and culture and values of mainstream Australia.
That bunch of Muslim extremist mongrels who were recently arrested on charges of plotting a terrorist attack against our military bases, are living proof of the risks we take in laying out the welcome mat to anyone who wants to come here, regardless of their religion or their background.

It's utterly ludicrous to keep out Zimbabweans and others who speak English as their first language, are educated and have job skills, and whose culture and values are similar to our own, while at the same time we accept some other Africans and various other people who don't speak English, are uneducated and have no job skills, and whose cultures and values are totally different to ours.

We need to harden up, take in only people who are not going to be a burden to us long before they start making any contribution to our society. Australia is not a damned charity organization, and we need to stop behaving like one.


----------



## Jackman (10 November 2009)

bunyip said:


> If we must have immigration to Australia, keep it for people who apply through legal channels and who have the job and language skills to slot immediately into our society without us having to pour money into teaching them English, training them for employment, and supplying them with their day to day needs in the meantime.
> 
> 
> We need to harden up, take in only people who are not going to be a burden to us long before they start making any contribution to our society. Australia is not a damned charity organization, and we need to stop behaving like one.





Bunyip,
You are spot on mate, but try telling the prawns we vote in that.  Too many times have I heard these leaders of ours tell us we don’t apologies for what we do.  More taxes on the way.

Jack


----------



## pilots (10 November 2009)

Last week on the TV show the Force, the police had a old blind man, who was sober, he was on the street homeless, the cops was ringing around trying find him a bed for him for the night. It is time we looked after our own first.
 Bunyip, your post said it all.


----------



## Happy (10 November 2009)

We are taken for a ride again!


----------



## Julia (11 November 2009)

pilots said:


> Last week on the TV show the Force, the police had a old blind man, who was sober, he was on the street homeless, the cops was ringing around trying find him a bed for him for the night. It is time we looked after our own first.
> Bunyip, your post said it all.



Yes, I saw that old man, pilots.  Really sad.  And there are plenty more like him.

In contrast, I heard David Manne, refugee lawyer, suggesting on ABC Radio this morning that the 78 people on the Oceanic Viking should be accommodated in *hotels* in Jakarta while their applications for resettlement are fast tracked!

Canberra have approached NZ to take them.  NZ have flatly refused, saying they believe to take an ad hoc approach to these arrivals completely sends the wrong message.

If the government allow any sort of special arrangements for these people, that will obviously be setting a precedent for the future.


----------



## pilots (11 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Yes, I saw that old man, pilots.  Really sad.  And there are plenty more like him.
> 
> In contrast, I heard David Manne, refugee lawyer, suggesting on ABC Radio this morning that the 78 people on the Oceanic Viking should be accommodated in *hotels* in Jakarta while their applications for resettlement are fast tracked!
> 
> ...




In a hotel, it had BETTER BE 5 STAR


----------



## noco (11 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Yes, I saw that old man, pilots.  Really sad.  And there are plenty more like him.
> 
> In contrast, I heard David Manne, refugee lawyer, suggesting on ABC Radio this morning that the 78 people on the Oceanic Viking should be accommodated in *hotels* in Jakarta while their applications for resettlement are fast tracked!
> 
> ...




Julia, this ongoing saga gets more intricate and embarrassing for the Labor Government by the day. This week with failure by the Indonesians to accept the 78 Sri Lakans, a rush trip to Sri Lanka, sus out India, a request to New Zealand to take them and the latest is for the Philippines to assist.

Rudd is becoming so desperate to avoid bringing them Australia. I wonder what his next attempt will be? Patience! Patience! Patience! Shush, we need time to think! The clock is ticking Mr. Rudd.


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

*Let me be absolutely clear* the blackmailers have won. The gutless Government will fast track the resettlement of the Tamils into Australia. The blackmailers are not happy . They will only leave the boat if they don't have to go into detention in the interim. They prefer hotel accommodation.



> The Government has made a new offer to the Sri Lankans on board the Australian Customs vessel, who have been on the vessel for more than two weeks, although some media reports suggest the asylum seekers have already rejected the deal.
> 
> Under the offer, those already recognised as refugees by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) have been promised resettlement in Australia within a month.
> 
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26339216-29277,00.html


----------



## lasty (12 November 2009)

Strange how 78 people can hold the Australian Labor Govt to ransom.
I say let them in. They are doing a better job than the Liberals right now.
Alex for PM


----------



## bigdog (12 November 2009)

Parliment resumes next monday and Rudd needs to get something into play before Monday. Question Time will be great viewing at 2:00 PM!!

My vote is to sail the Oceanic Viking to Sri Lanka; but first offer those that want to be processed by Australia to get off the boat in Indonesia and offer those that refuse to leave the ship, a free trip home to Sri Lanka by ship.


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

lasty said:


> Strange how 78 people can hold the Australian Labor Govt to ransom.
> I say let them in. They are doing a better job than the Liberals right now.
> Alex for PM




The PM has already offered Alex a job as his Special Adviser on Immigration. Alex advocates a hard line on all immigrants except Tamils. 

Our hard, but humane (read gutless) government is already looking at means to expedite the passage of Tamils directly from Sri Lanka to Australia to leave the nasty people smugglers and Indonesians out of the loop.


----------



## noco (12 November 2009)

In the meantime, it has cost us tax payers $75,000 per day X 28 DAYS = $2,100,000 while the Oceanic Viking lays idol in Indonesian waters.

If Rudd does not want them why doesn't he come clean and say so. Start your engines boys and head back to Sri Lanka as Barnaby suggested last week.


----------



## bunyip (12 November 2009)

bigdog said:


> Parliment resumes next monday and Rudd needs to get something into play before Monday. Question Time will be great viewing at 2:00 PM!!
> 
> My vote is to sail the Oceanic Viking to Sri Lanka; but first offer those that want to be processed by Australia to get off the boat in Indonesia and offer those that refuse to leave the ship, a free trip home to Sri Lanka by ship.




My vote is to give them all a free trip home to Sri Lanka and don't let any of them get off anywhere near Australia.


----------



## justjohn (12 November 2009)

And where is our fearless leader ,INDIA ,on another overseas junket ,Why? ,probably the only place he has'nt been too since becoming PM &%$#&@#$#@


----------



## Calliope (12 November 2009)

I have just watched the interview of Immigration Minister, Chris Evans by Kerry O'Brien on the 7.30 Report. It was pathetic to see this poor fool , with sincerity written all over his face, trying to justify the special deal he has cut with the Tamil extortionists on the Oceanic Viking.

O'Brien tried repeatedly, without any result, to get him to explain why these people should get priority over those asylum seekers already being processed in Indonesia.

I felt sorry for Evans. Lying and obfuscation does not come as easily to him as it does to his Dear Leader.


----------



## bunyip (12 November 2009)

G'day and welcome to a brand new edition of : 
_*'ASYLUM'. *_

Today's program features another chance to take part in our exciting competition: 
Hop on a boat 
And win 
A FREE HOUSE! 
We've already given away hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of dream homes, courtesy of our sponsor, 
The Australian Taxpayer. 
And don't forget, we're now the fastest growing game on the planet. 
Anyone can play, provided they don't already hold a valid Australian Passport, and you only need one word of English: 
_*'ASYLUM' *_

Prizes include all-expenses-paid accommodation, cash benefits starting at $800 a week and a chance to earn thousands more begging, mugging and 
accosting drivers at traffic lights.
This competition is open to everyone 
buy a ticket to Indonesia 
And catch the first available boat. 
No application ever refused - reasonable or unreasonable. 
All you have to do is destroy all your papers or burn your boat once you 
Enter Australian waters and remember the magic password: 
_*'ASYLUM' *_

A few years ago, 140 members of the Taliban family from Afghanistan were flown Goat Class from Kabul to Indonesia’s gateway where agents were on hand to fast-track them to their boat trips to luxury accommodation 
They joined tens of thousands of other lucky winners already staying in hotels all over Australia. 
Our most popular destinations also include the Baxter’s reef and the world famous Christmas Island resort 
If you still don't understand the rules, don't forget, there's no need to phone a friend or ask the audience 
Just apply for legal aid. 
Hundreds of lawyers, social workers and counsellors are waiting to help. 
It won't cost you a penny. 
It could change your life forever . 
So play today. 

Iraqi terrorists, Afghan dissidents, Albanian gangsters, pro-Pinochet 
activists, anti-Pinochet activists, Kosovan drug-smugglers, Tamil tigers, 
bogus Bosnians, Rwandan mass murderers, Somali guerrillas... 
COME ON DOWN! 

Get along to the Indonesia fishing ports 
Don't stop in Thailand or Bali   
Go straight to Australia 
And you are: 
GUARANTEED 
to be one of tens of thousands of lucky winners in the easiest game on earth. 
Everyone's a winner, when they play 
_*'ASYLUM' *_


----------



## dutchie (12 November 2009)

This saga could be the catalyst for Rudd to lose the next (unloseable) election.

He is well on the way.


----------



## 888 (12 November 2009)

I normally feel for refuge but this particular boat people don't strike me for refuge.  I spend 18 years in Indonesia, nothing wrong with that country for living, if they're a real refuge, they be jumping for joy to be able to live there.


----------



## dutchie (12 November 2009)

"Publishers won't drop prices; they will continue to exploit Australia for all that they can.

If the Government cannot deliver this simple reform because of the uneducated clamour of a few authors who are driven by publishers' interests, then there is little hope that the Government will be able to stand up to *other pressure groups *and bring about useful change for the economy and our society."

Quote from Allan Fels 

http://www.smh.com.au/business/auth...onopoly-means-dearer-books-20091111-i9xn.html


----------



## Julia (12 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> I have just watched the interview of Immigration Minister, Chris Evans by Kerry O'Brien on the 7.30 Report. It was pathetic to see this poor fool , with sincerity written all over his face, trying to justify the special deal he has cut with the Tamil extortionists on the Oceanic Viking.
> 
> O'Brien tried repeatedly, without any result, to get him to explain why these people should get priority over those asylum seekers already being processed in Indonesia.
> 
> I felt sorry for Evans. Lying and obfuscation does not come as easily to him as it does to his Dear Leader.



It was painful to watch indeed.   I had the same impression, i.e. that Mr Evans was acting his proscribed role, mouthing the same platitudes and non-answers, even in the face of (for once) Kerry O'Brien's persistently critical questions, but that he was really uncomfortable.

Unfortunately I think only a small proportion of the voting public watch the 7.30 Report.





bunyip said:


> G'day and welcome to a brand new edition of :
> _*'ASYLUM'. *_..................



Bunyip, I think you've missed your calling.
You'd get a top job in a PR agency with your copywriting skills!


dutchie said:


> This saga could be the catalyst for Rudd to lose the next (unloseable) election.
> 
> He is well on the way.



He has a lot of votes to lose yet, Dutchie.



888 said:


> I normally feel for refuge but this particular boat people don't strike me for refuge.  I spend 18 years in Indonesia, nothing wrong with that country for living, if they're a real refuge, they be jumping for joy to be able to live there.



That's really interesting 888.  I don't mean to be intrusive but would it be possible to tell us some more about your background, where you came from, and the circumstances which prompted you to leave, and then your 18 years in Indonesia?  Were these years in Indonesia spent in a detention centre, or in the community, either working or as a refugee awaiting resettlement?

We don't often have the opportunity to hear from people who have had your experience.


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2009)

noco said:


> In the meantime, it has cost us tax payers $75,000 per day X 28 DAYS = $2,100,000 while the Oceanic Viking lays idol in Indonesian waters.




Mr Rudd's immigration advisers must expect these Tamils to become very productive citizens when the settle in Australia. However I doubt that a lifetime of tax paying will go anywhere near repaying the Australian taxpayers for the huge bill they have already rung up. And it's still work in progress.


----------



## pilots (13 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Mr Rudd's immigration advisers must expect these Tamils to become very productive citizens when the settle in Australia. However I doubt that a lifetime of tax paying will go anywhere near repaying the Australian taxpayers for the huge bill they have already rung up. And it's still work in progress.



A life time of paying tax's won't pay for the house they are given. Krudd what a joke.


----------



## justjohn (13 November 2009)

dutchie said:


> This saga could be the catalyst for Rudd to lose the next (unloseable) election.
> 
> He is well on the way.




Who's going to beat him,Turnbull is as spineless and pathetic


----------



## Calliope (13 November 2009)

It's the *pull factor.*



> Rudd on Monday:
> YOU'RE dealing also with a large part of the push factors which are operating worldwide, and that's what we're doing: responsible policy dealing with the global factors, with the push factors.
> 
> Palitha Kohona is Sri Lanka's permanent representative to the UN, on Lateline on Wednesday:
> ...


----------



## Happy (13 November 2009)

> It's the magnetic attraction of Australia that has brought these people to Australia's shores illegally.





Still First World Country with fast diluting resources.

Once we are not attractive any more, they will risk their life to go to greener pastures somewhere else.


----------



## inenigma (13 November 2009)

Denmark once had a very generous immigration policy and welcomed all and sundry with open arms.  People of a certain religious flavour went to Denmark and accepted all the free handouts.  And multiplied.  

Denmark no longer has such a generous immigration policy because of what the  previous immigration policy had begat them.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2009)

Congratulations Kevin for fast tracking entry to our shores the most expensive immigrants any country has ever bought.

And not only that, these Tamils  who have honed their extortion skills on the Oceanic Viking, know that when they get here. with these skills, they will never have to work again and will live on the public purse for ever. It is not surprising that native Sri Lankans dislike them.

When Rudd was asked if these people had been cut a special deal, he said;

*"Absolutely not"*

He is a psychopathic liar.  His words will give encouragement to the thousands of boat people getting ready to head for our shores.


----------



## bigdog (15 November 2009)

Watch 2:00 PM tomorrow on channel 2 for Parliment Question Time.
-- tape it if you are at work.

There is every chance that Kevin will arrange for the "Senate Question Time" to be televised at the 2:00 PM timeslot!! 

Rudd the Dud or Krudd!!

I will not vote again for the Dud or Krudd at the next election.

How can the Dud or Krudd run the country when he can not control our borders?


----------



## bunyip (15 November 2009)

bigdog said:


> Watch 2:00 PM tomorrow on channel 2 for Parliment Question Time.
> -- tape it if you are at work.
> 
> There is every chance that Kevin will arrange for the "Senate Question Time" to be televised at the 2:00 PM timeslot!!
> ...




I can't imagine why anyone voted for the bastard at the l_ast_ election!


----------



## Julia (15 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> His words will give encouragement to the thousands of boat people getting ready to head for our shores.



"The National Interest" is a current affairs programme on Radio National, broadcast noon on Sundays.  Today there was an interview with the Minister for Immigration, Chris Evans.

He was asked about the queue (which many on the Left proclaim does not exist) of approved migrants, waiting to come to Australia.
These people have paid many thousands of dollars in fees for their application, plus more for providing health checks etc required by the government.
They have provided documentation as to their skills and their ability to bring benefit to Australia.

When pressed, Mr Evans conceded that there are approximately 30,000 such people already onshore in Australia, plus approximately 105,000 off shore.

They await a decision by the Australian government, although they have already offered proof of their capacity to make a decent contribution to our society, and paid for so doing.

We keep these people out while we admit asylum seekers unprepared to take their place in this queue and who have amply demonstrated their character via the blackmail they have so successfully employed while occupying an Australian Customs vessel for a month.


----------



## bigdog (16 November 2009)

bigdog said:


> Watch 2:00 PM tomorrow on channel 2 for Parliment Question Time.
> -- tape it if you are at work.
> 
> There is every chance that Kevin will arrange for the "Senate Question Time" to be televised at the 2:00 PM timeslot!!




YES KEVIN HAS THE SWITCHED SENATE QUESTION TIME TELECAST TO 2:00 pm NOW
-- WHAT A COWARD!!

THE HOUSE OF REPS QUESTION TIME DELAYED TELECAST IS ON AT 1:25 AM TOMORROW MORNING WITH FEW TO WATCH HIM!!

RUDD THE KRUDD OR DUD.


----------



## bunyip (16 November 2009)

Julia said:


> "The National Interest" is a current affairs programme on Radio National, broadcast noon on Sundays.  Today there was an interview with the Minister for Immigration, Chris Evans.
> 
> He was asked about the queue (which many on the Left proclaim does not exist) of approved migrants, waiting to come to Australia.
> These people have paid many thousands of dollars in fees for their application, plus more for providing health checks etc required by the government.
> ...




Exactly.

I would suggest that a person has limited capacity for clear thinking if he or she can't see the blatant stupidity of the Rudd government's immigration policy, which can be summed up as follows.......

Accept people who have limited or no job skills, limited or no English, limited or no money, limited or no capacity to immediately slot into our society and lifestyle and start making a worthwhile contribution from day 1, will cost us huge money in welfare support, have come here illegally, and are from cultures and religions that are largely incompatible with the culture and religion of mainstream Australia.

Reject many people - e.g. white Zimbabweans -  who have all the skills and attributes needed to immediately slot in and start making a significant contribution to our country, have applied through the legal channels to come here, and whose cultures, values and religion are completely compatible with mainstream Australia.

If anyone can see any sense in the above policy, then please explain it to this forum. 

Forget all the emotional crap about how it's cruel and heartless to turn asylum seekers away.

Just put forward some simple, rational, commonsense arguments as to why we should accept unsuitable people who will be a burden on us from day 1, while at the same time reject suitable people who have the capacity to make a positive contribution to our country from day 1.


----------



## Calliope (16 November 2009)

Shame on you bunyip. What ever happened to the warm inner glow? I was only joking, WIG ia a very selective thing. There is a news item today that the residents of Logan City are objecting to the establishment of a place for the homeless in their neighbourhood. Wait for the punch line...they claim it is too close to a school

I suppose if they were homeless Tamils it would be OK.


----------



## Buddy (16 November 2009)

Bunyip, you must be one of those shameless, in-humane, red necked voting, racists that no pants Fraser  was referring to in his rant over the weeked.  Remember him, he was Australia's, arguably, worst P.M..


----------



## bunyip (16 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Shame on you bunyip. What ever happened to the warm inner glow? I was only joking, WIG ia a very selective thing. There is a news item today that the residents of Logan City are objecting to the establishment of a place for the homeless in their neighbourhood. Wait for the punch line...they claim it is too close to a school
> 
> I suppose if they were homeless Tamils it would be OK.




Perhaps the homeless could be offered meals and accommodation in the homes of the do-gooders who say it's cruel and heartless to turn refugees away from Australia. According to the thinking of these people, we should be dishing out help open slather to anyone less fortunate than ourselves.
Well OK then - wouldn't this also include homeless people? What better and more immediate way to help them than take them into our homes?

So why don't the do-gooders do so? Perhaps because they have the common sense to realise that it's just not practical, and in fact could be quite dangerous, to open their homes to total strangers.
Well then, why can't these same do-gooders apply similar logical thinking to the refugee problem?
It's impractical, and potentially risky, to allow homeless, skill-less refugees from other countries to come into Australia. Particularly since many are from cultures and religions that have contempt for western lifestyles and values and religion.

It's proven fact - not just my opinion - that some of the people we've brought in have plotted to launch terror attacks against us.
I'm not suggesting that all refugees are or will be so inclined, but why the hell would we risk it when we don't need to?


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2009)

bunyip said:


> Just put forward some simple, rational, commonsense arguments as to why we should accept unsuitable people who will be a burden on us from day 1, while at the same time reject suitable people who have the capacity to make a positive contribution to our country from day 1.




Compassion and humane are two qualities of mind that need to be engaged when "assessing" the boat people. The identifying of refugees from exploiters of the aforementioned qualities is the problem that needs to be addressed.


----------



## bunyip (16 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Compassion and humane are two qualities of mind that need to be engaged when "assessing" the boat people. The identifying of refugees from exploiters of the aforementioned qualities is the problem that needs to be addressed.




Can you give any logical reason why our immigration policy should not be...

_'Apply through the legal channels - no illegal immigrants will be accepted'?_


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 November 2009)

bunyip said:


> Can you give any logical reason why our immigration policy should not be...
> 
> _'Apply through the legal channels - no illegal immigrants will be accepted'?_



That is the policy. My previous post gives reason why this is not adhered to.


----------



## Asti (16 November 2009)

I received this information in an email the other day. I have not checked its accuracy but it makes for interesting reading.

The Australian Federal Government provides the following financial assistance:-

FOR AN AUSTRALIAN AGED PENSIONER
Weekly Allowance                                $253.00
Weekly Spouse Allowance                     $56.00
Additional Weekly Hardship Allowance      $0.00
Total Yearly Benefit                             $16,068.00


FOR AN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT/REFUGEE LIVING IN AUSTRALIA
Weekly Allowance                                $472.50
Weekly Spouse Allowance                      $472.50
Additional Weekly Hardship Allowance      $145.00
Total Yearly Benefit                             $56,680.00


Hmmm... Something to think about... 

After all, the average Australian Aged Pensioner has paid taxes and contributed to the growth of this country for the last 40-60 years...


----------



## bunyip (16 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> That is the policy. My previous post gives reason why this is not adhered to.




No, that is not the policy.

Legal immigrants are those who apply through the legal channels to come here.

Those who arrive on Australian soil or in Australian waters without having applied through the legal channels are, by definition, illegal.


----------



## noco (16 November 2009)

Asti said:


> I received this information in an email the other day. I have not checked its accuracy but it makes for interesting reading.
> 
> The Australian Federal Government provides the following financial assistance:-
> 
> ...




Thanks for that research Asti. That is absolutly absurd. I wish the media would publish those figures for all and sundry to see. No wonder the SRI Lankans are insisting on coming to Australia.

Hope Andrew Bolt gets to see these figures. He'll have a ball.


----------



## Calliope (16 November 2009)

bunyip said:


> It's impractical, and potentially risky, to allow homeless, skill-less refugees from other countries to come into Australia. Particularly since many are from cultures and religions that have contempt for western lifestyles and values and religion.




It has long baffled me why the feminist movement is not up in arms that we allow people into this country whose religion precludes them treating women as equals. Perhaps their argument is that their women like being treated as chattels. Many women in Afghanistan and Pakistan don't agree but they get short shrift if they stand up for their rights.

I think it is because our laws regard religious beliefs as sacred, and any criticism of their practices, however nasty, will land you in hot water. You will certainly be branded a racist. This is usually enough to shut you up.


----------



## Julia (16 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Compassion and humane are two qualities of mind that need to be engaged when "assessing" the boat people. The identifying of refugees from exploiters of the aforementioned qualities is the problem that needs to be addressed.



That's a very impressive sounding statement, but I'm not really sure what it means.  Could you put it in more simple terms?



Asti said:


> I received this information in an email the other day. I have not checked its accuracy but it makes for interesting reading.
> 
> The Australian Federal Government provides the following financial assistance:-
> 
> ...



This is complete nonsense.  It does the rounds on the internet every now and again, starting about four years ago.
Repeat:  there is absolutely no truth in this rubbish.




bunyip said:


> No, that is not the policy.
> 
> Legal immigrants are those who apply through the legal channels to come here.
> 
> Those who arrive on Australian soil or in Australian waters without having applied through the legal channels are, by definition, illegal.



This evening I was talking to a woman I know slightly who came to Australia with her parents about 15 years ago from South Africa.

They adhered to the official application process, provided personal, medical and career documentation, and in addition were sponsored by someone already living in Australia who had to guarantee them for two years.
This meant that if they were unable to find work on arrival, their sponsor would be entirely responsible for them in every way, i.e. accommodation and living costs, health costs, everything.

The cost of making this application was many thousands of dollars.

They had to wait for more than two years before being admitted to Australia.

Both parents, and the woman I know, quickly found work soon after arrival, and continue to be self supporting and contributors to their local community.

I don't think it needs to be spelled out how galling people like this who have pursued immigration through the legal channels find the subversion of the proper process such as we are currently seeing.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2009)

Julia said:


> That's a very impressive sounding statement, but I'm not really sure what it means. Could you put it in more simple terms?



People try to exploit the qualities of compassion and humane by claiming they are refugees when in fact they are not. Identifying who the exploiters are from the genuine refugees must be difficult for the authorities as observed with the boat people incidents. Apart from media reports I don't know anything about the actual circumstances of every boat person.


----------



## Calliope (17 November 2009)

All is not lost. The Indonesian president has given the obnoxious Rudd the brush-off. The Indonesian solution is dead in the water.


----------



## bunyip (17 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> People try to exploit the qualities of compassion and humane by claiming they are refugees when in fact they are not. Identifying who the exploiters are from the genuine refugees must be difficult for the authorities as observed with the boat people incidents. Apart from media reports I don't know anything about the actual circumstances of every boat person.




I presume you  mean the quality of  _*humanity*_, rather than the quality of _*humane.*_

The authorities shouldn't have to sort the genuine refugees from the pretenders. The whole damn lot of them should be turned away if they've arrived in our wates or on our shores without applying through the legal channels and due processes that apply to everyone else who wants to come here.

If this imbecile Rudd hadn't been so downright f-----g stupid as to dismantle the strong deterrent measures put in place by the Howard government - measures that were proving very effective in curbing the number of boat people - then we wouldn't have this ridiculous and continuously escalating problem of illegal boat people invading us.

How can we ever hope to solve the problem of boat people and illegal immigration if this idiot of a Prime Minister who some of you foolishly voted into power, keeps laying out the welcome mat for them.
All he's doing is pouring fuel on the fire, and he's too dumb to realise it.


----------



## Nyden (17 November 2009)

bunyip said:


> I presume you  mean the quality of  _*humanity*_, rather than the quality of _*humane.*_
> 
> The authorities shouldn't have to sort the genuine refugees from the pretenders. The whole damn lot of them should be turned away if they've arrived in our wates or on our shores without applying through the legal channels and due processes that apply to everyone else who wants to come here.
> 
> If this imbecile Rudd hadn't been so downright f-----g stupid as to dismantle the strong deterrent measures put in place by the Howard government - measures that were proving very effective in curbing the number of boat people - then we wouldn't have this ridiculous and continuously escalating problem of illegal boat people invading us.




Quite. Just send them back to Sri Lanka, it's really that easy.


----------



## Calliope (17 November 2009)

Nyden said:


> Quite. Just send them back to Sri Lanka, it's really that easy.




Or their Indian homeland where I am sure they would be welcome. Or perhaps they wouldn't. India is more wary than we are about letting in terrorists, and these people have a bad record in Sri Lanka for pillage and murder and suicide bombing


----------



## pilots (17 November 2009)

I find it strange that the boat people pay around US$5000 to get here, now for that amount of money you can set your self up in India for ever, no war, same kind of people, same language, same food. Thank you Krudd.


----------



## Mofra (17 November 2009)

pilots said:


> I find it strange that the boat people pay around* US$5000 *to get here, now for that amount of money you can set your self up in India for ever, no war, same kind of people, same language, same food. Thank you Krudd.



Source?


----------



## pilots (17 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> Source?




Source, I have lived and worked in India, still communicate regular with Friends who are still working in India. For US$10,000 you could buy a whole village.


----------



## dbcok (17 November 2009)

How silly all of this distant judgement becomes.
Last week I heard the ususal Adelaide radio segment with protaganists Chris Pyne Liberal and Chris Schacht (ex labor senator)

I will paraphrase them-

Pyne..These people (Refugees) paid $15000 US to secure a passage to Australia.

Schacht...Before second world war Jews paid  large sums to escape Nazi Germany.Are you suggesting that people should not use their money to escape to safety?

Pyne...No one is suggesting people should not be able to use their money.

That is the type of disingenuous rubbish that politicians put up.Now who would listen to politicians?


----------



## Mofra (17 November 2009)

pilots said:


> Source, I have lived and worked in India, still communicate regular with Friends who are still working in India. For US$10,000 you could buy a whole village.



No, I meant what is the source that says they pay that sort of money to come to Australia by boat? That seems a rather high amount knowing the conditions some of the genuine refugees live under, especially considering that a plane fare & fake passport would be much cheaper.


----------



## pilots (17 November 2009)

Mfr said:


> No, I meant what is the source that says they pay that sort of money to come to Australia by boat? That seems a rather high amount knowing the conditions some of the genuine refugees live under, especially considering that a plane fare & fake passport would be much cheaper.



Any of the boat people will tell you what they have payed,(do you think the smugglers do it for free??) The last boat that was stopped and some shooting took place, the boat people had just done a pass the hat around and had to get US$50,000 yes 50,000 so as the Indonesian boat police/navy  would let them pass. They have money. This source was from the ABC Radio yesterday.


----------



## noco (17 November 2009)

Asti said:


> I received this information in an email the other day. I have not checked its accuracy but it makes for interesting reading.
> 
> The Australian Federal Government provides the following financial assistance:-
> 
> ...




Asti, I do not know where you obtained your imformation regarding the refugee allowances or how you checked the authenticity, but I have been advised from reliable sources, it is NOT true.

Suggest yiu check again.


----------



## Mofra (17 November 2009)

pilots said:


> Any of the boat people will tell you what they have payed,(do you think the smugglers do it for free??)



No, surely you don't think anyone actually thinks that? 




pilots said:


> The last boat that was stopped and some shooting took place, the boat people had just done a pass the hat around and had to get US$50,000 yes 50,000 so as the Indonesian boat police/navy would let them pass. They have money. This source was from the ABC Radio yesterday.



That is a helluva lot of money especially considering likelyhood of local earning power - I hope the tracking of the source of funds isn't lost in the debate over status & method of arrival.


----------



## bigdog (17 November 2009)

*Let me see if I understand all this...*

IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOUR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE AUSTRALIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, A DRIVERS LICENCE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS,  SUBSIDISED RENT , FREE EDUCATION, FREE HEALTH CARE, A LOBBYIST IN CANBERRA AND IN MANY INSTANCES YOU CAN VOTE.


----------



## lasty (17 November 2009)

How many travel agents get you to hand over $5000 and promise you the trip of a life time?  Travel agents are pseudo "people smugglers"


----------



## pilots (17 November 2009)

bigdog said:


> *Let me see if I understand all this...*
> 
> IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOUR.
> 
> ...




Come on Bigdog, you are just mad that the Krudd Dud is getting lots of new voters in to Australia, and guess what they will all vote for him


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2009)

bigdog said:


> *Let me see if I understand all this...*
> IF YOU CROSS THE AUSTRALIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET A JOB, A DRIVERS LICENCE, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD, WELFARE, FOOD STAMPS,  SUBSIDISED RENT , FREE EDUCATION, FREE HEALTH CARE, A LOBBYIST IN CANBERRA AND IN MANY INSTANCES YOU CAN VOTE.



Love those hard hitting facts.


----------



## lasty (17 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Love those hard hitting facts.




Actually its the rise in the CO2 levels that are forcing the boats to Australia.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2009)

lasty said:


> Actually its the rise in the CO2 levels that are forcing the boats to Australia.



Thanks for sharing.


----------



## Happy (17 November 2009)

Not long before we get to boat a day, then it will be great Border Control achievement if we will only get a boat every second day (50% reduction).


----------



## moXJO (17 November 2009)

noco said:


> Asti, I do not know where you obtained your imformation regarding the refugee allowances or how you checked the authenticity, but I have been advised from reliable sources, it is NOT true.
> 
> Suggest yiu check again.




Debunked here;

http://www.hoax-slayer.com/refugee-payment-hoax.shtml

I thought the extra was from non-government aid organizations?


----------



## Julia (17 November 2009)

moXJO said:


> I thought the extra was from non-government aid organizations?



No.  Any such assistance would be on an ad hoc basis.  Certainly not paid on any regular basis.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 November 2009)

Happy said:


> Not long before we get to boat a day, then it will be great Border Control achievement if we will only get a boat every second day (50% reduction).



Happy mate. These were the scenes in Tanjung Pinang yesterday after word quickly spread that Australia is offering to the first 5000  a free holiday on Christmas Island followed up by ferry transfer to Australia where more suitable accommodation will be offered.


----------



## Mofra (18 November 2009)

Happy said:


> Not long before we get to boat a day, then it will be great Border Control achievement if we will only get a boat every second day (50% reduction).



Given 1,700 people arrived last year, and the numbers haven't risen to the degree warranted by much of the hysteria, that would perhaps maybe possibly be a teeny weeny chance only if people started arriving by canoe


----------



## Happy (18 November 2009)

This pick a country to be REFUGEE is a joke and we are taken for a ride.

If they were political refugees there was DEMOCRATIC COUNTRY INDIA only less than 20 km away.

If you want to come to Australia as economic refuge, please take a number and wait in a queue, we take great deal of you in organised fashion!


----------



## Julia (18 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Happy mate. These were the scenes in Tanjung Pinang yesterday after word quickly spread that Australia is offering to the first 5000  a free holiday on Christmas Island followed up by ferry transfer to Australia where more suitable accommodation will be offered.




Pretty funny, Wysiwyg.  Thanks.


----------



## bigdog (18 November 2009)

Todays Australian
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ing-us-like-mugs/story-e6frg6zo-1225799013258

*Rudd is treating us like mugs *
Paul Kelly, Editor-at-large From: 
The Australian November 18, 2009 12:00AM 

THERE is an emerging credibility gap in the Rudd government's navigation of contentious policy issues, a compulsion that denies the obvious and rests on the apparent assumption that Australians are mugs. 

There are many examples but the issue of asylum-seekers offers compelling evidence. Kevin Rudd invested much time in parliament on Monday insisting that the 22 asylum-seekers who first left the Oceanic Viking were receiving no preferential arrangement. Asked by 3AW's Neil Mitchell last week if there was special treatment, the Prime Minister replied: "Absolutely not." Yet the terms set out by the Minister-Counsellor Immigration in the Jakarta embassy, Jim O'Callaghan, to the asylum-seekers suggests a set of detailed special arrangements. They were authorised by the Rudd government's border protection committee of cabinet chaired by Immigration Minister Chris Evans.

The Australian's Jakarta correspondent Stephen Fitzpatrick reported yesterday that the Oceanic Viking people were quarantined from others because of resentment at their preferential conditions courtesy of the Rudd government.

There are three key provisions in O'Callaghan's document: if the UNHCR has found a person to be a refugee they will be resettled within four to six weeks of disembarkation; if an individual has already registered with the UNHCR they will be resettled within 12 weeks of disembarkation; and if people are not yet registered and are found to be refugees, they will also be resettled within 12 weeks. These provisions are highly generous. It is no surprise they are exceptional within UNHCR Indonesian operations. There are many refugees in Indonesia and none is given resettlement in four to six weeks.

The Australian offer included English language and orientation classes while cases are being processed. A "highly professional" team of Australian officials will work "every day" to assist refugee applications. The Red Cross will assist in tracing family members. The Sri Lankans were told many services will be provided in the resettlement country and these may include "assistance with housing, medical care and counselling, income support, English language tuition and help to find a job".

Rudd has been desperate to persuade the Sri Lankans to disembark in Indonesia. He had rightly drawn a line in the sand; he would not allow the boat to come to Christmas Island and he had a victory yesterday with reports that all Sri Lankans would disembark after the past month's protracted agony.

To grasp the nature of the special arrangement, consider the following: at October 1 there were 1760 registered asylum-seekers in Indonesia and 573 people recognised as refugees by the UNHCR in Jakarta; the typical delay time for processing and resettlement far exceeds 12 weeks and usually runs beyond 12 months. Australia, in short, is fast-tracking the Oceanic Viking people.

Evans said last week that Australia was "more likely to get the larger proportion" as the final destination. The exceptions to this, mentioned by Evans, was "if, for instance, they've got a first cousin living in Canada". Decoded the message is most are headed for Australia. However, this is far from the normal arrangement.

About 1300 people have been resettled from Indonesia to third nations in recent years and Australia has taken about one-third, with the rest going to Canada, the US, New Zealand, Sweden and France. Having rejected force to remove people, Australia had only one option left: it had to persuade them. Nobody should be surprised at the inducements offered. It was the price Rudd had to pay to keep the boat out of our territory. The price is justified. After the shambles of the past month it is a relief that Australia did not have to offer more. The criticism of Rudd is not that he paid such a price; it is that he pretends he paid no price whatsoever. He seems to think almost any line can be spun and will be believed, even when it is nonsense.

On Monday Rudd tabled a letter in parliament from Immigration Department Secretary Andrew Metcalfe to Evans, dated the same day. It was a classic example of recruiting under duress a senior public servant to buttress the government's line. The letter is a study in fact and political evasion. On tabling Metcalfe's letter, Rudd claimed it showed from the perspective of the departmental secretary "that these are not preferential arrangements". The letter shows nothing of the kind. Indeed, it is significant that Metcalfe avoids any such formulation.

He merely says that the group is being treated in a manner "consistent with that afforded to any other asylum-seeker or refugee in Indonesia". He does, however, say that Australia and Indonesia have agreed on "timeframes for the processing", which may imply a special arrangement. Requesting such a letter achieved nothing and the request should not have been made. Yet Rudd persisted in using Metcalfe as a shield and, responding to criticism from Opposition Leader Malcolm Turnbull, he claimed that Turnbull was disputing advice from "the independent Public Service of Australia". On the contrary, it shows the government stooping to use the public service to buttress a bad case.

It is noteworthy that Rudd was not involved in authorising the offer to the Sri Lankans. He told parliament on Monday that he was unaware of the offer's terms and did not authorise it. Turnbull seemed to find this unbelievable. But Rudd's denial was unequivocal. It stands despite his subsequent clarification that the cabinet committee that did approve the offer contained Rudd's staff.

The real point is that the Rudd government authorised a necessary special deal and, embarrassed about its domestic ramifications, tried to deny the obvious.


----------



## Calliope (18 November 2009)

Good story bigdog. Apparently other other asylum seekers at the centre are not happy with the Tamils being queue jumped ahead of them and given better conditions.



> The Australian's Jakarta correspondent Stephen Fitzpatrick reported yesterday that the Oceanic Viking people were quarantined from others because of resentment at their preferential conditions courtesy of the Rudd government.


----------



## Calliope (18 November 2009)

Mr Rudd explains the special deal, which he wasn't aware was being made;

"A second set of circumstances other than those that pertain to the general application of Australian and Indonesian arrangements under these circumstances with the UNHCR."


----------



## Mofra (18 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Mr Rudd explains the special deal, which he *wasn't aware was being made;*
> 
> "A second set of circumstances other than those that pertain to the general application of Australian and Indonesian arrangements under these circumstances with the UNHCR."



The control freak not being aware of deals being made regarding the biggest political headache he is currently handling?

Methinks Krudd is being a little "creative" with his "recollection of events".


----------



## Mofra (18 November 2009)

*Populism Trumps Policy*

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-plays-catchup-on-refugees-20091117-ikdy.html


----------



## bunyip (20 November 2009)

A refugee on Christmas Island, awaiting resettlement to Australia, was approached by a beautiful fairy.

'Good man,' the fairy said, 'I've been sent here by Prime Minister Rudd and told to grant you three wishes, since you just arrived from Sri Lanka with your wife and eight children.'

The man told the fairy.  'Well, where I come from we don't have good teeth, so I want new teeth, maybe a lot of gold in them.'

The fairy looked at the man's almost toothless grin and -- PING ! -- he had a brand new shining set of gold teeth in his mouth!

'What else?' asked the fairy, 'two more to go.'

The refugee claimant now got bolder.  'I need a big house with a three car garage in Australia's premier real estate location, preferably  on the water with ten bedrooms for my family and the rest of my relatives who still live in my country.  I want to bring them all over here'.

PING ! -- in the distance there could be seen a beautiful mansion with a three car garage, a long driveway, a walkout patio with a BBQ in an upscale neighbourhood overlooking the bay.

'One more wish', said the fairy, waving her wand. 

'Yes, one more wish' said the Sri Lankan,  'I want to be like an Australian with Australian clothes instead of these rags I'm wearing. And I want to have white skin like Australians. . and -- 

PING ! -- The man was transformed, with white skin and wearing worn out jeans, a faded t-shirt and a baseball cap.  He had his bad teeth back and the mansion had disappeared from the horizon.

'What happened to my new teeth?' he wailed..  'Where is my new house?' 

The fairy said 'Tough luck, sonny boy - no more freebies for you - you have to fend for yourself now that you're a white Australian.'


----------



## Happy (20 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> *The control freak not being aware of deals *being made regarding the biggest political headache he is currently handling?
> 
> Methinks Krudd is being a little "creative" with his "recollection of events".




 Yea, pull the other leg, this one is not responding.


----------



## Boggo (20 November 2009)

G'Day and welcome to a brand new edition of :


' ASYLUM '.  
Today's program features another chance to take part in our exciting competition:
Hop on a boat
And win
A COUNCIL HOUSE !
We've already given away hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of dream homes, courtesy of our sponsor,  
The Australian Taxpayer.


And don't forget, we're now the fastest growing game on the planet.  
Anyone can play, provided they don't already hold a valid Australian Passport, and you only need one word of English:
' ASYLUM '


Prizes include all-expenses-paid accommodation, cash benefits starting at $800 a week and a chance to earn thousands more begging, mugging and  
accosting drivers at traffic lights.
This competition is open to everyone  
buy a ticket to Indonesia
And catch the first available boat.

No application ever refused - reasonable or unreasonable.
All you have to do is destroy all your papers or burn your boat once you
Enter Australian waters and remember the magic password:
' ASYLUM '


A few years ago, 140 members of the Taliban family from Afghanistan were flown Goat Class from Kabul to Indonesia’s gateway where agents were on hand to fast-track them to their boat trips to luxury accommodation.
They joined tens of thousands of other lucky winners already staying in hotels all over  Australia
Our most popular destinations also include the Baxter’s reef and the world famous Christmas Island resort. If you still don't understand the rules, don't forget, there's no need to phone a friend or ask the audience ... Just apply for legal aid.
Hundreds of lawyers, social workers and counsellors are waiting to help.
It won't cost  you a penny.
It could change your life forever.  

So play today.

Iraqi terrorists, Afghan dissidents, Albanian gangsters, pro-Pinochet  
activists, anti-Pinochet activists, Kosovan drug-smugglers, Tamil tigers,  
bogus Bosnians, Rwandan mass murderers, Somali guerrillas...
COME ON DOWN!

Get along to Indonesia
Get along to the fishing ports
Don't stop in Thailand or Bali  
Go straight to Australia
And you are:
GUARANTEED
to be one of tens of thousands of lucky winners in the easiest game on earth.

Everyone's a winner, when they play
' ASYLUM '


----------



## Calliope (21 November 2009)

Congratulations Boggo, an  excellent summary of the situation. Maybe it should have included the information that if they hijack the rescue boat they will receive even more favoured treatment than those already in the system.

Rudd as a spinmeister is at the top of his game, but no amount of spin can conceal the fact that if a group of Tamils had seized control of an aircraft under similar circumstances and coerced the captain to take them to an alternative destination they would have been treated as hijackers and would now be in jail.


----------



## pilots (21 November 2009)

Boggos post said it all, I will spend this weekend trying to help raise money for our grand daughter's school so they can have AC for this summer.


----------



## trainspotter (21 November 2009)

''Question time is dominated by 78 people on a boat. We have around 50,000 visa overstayers every year,'' he said of people who arrive by plane rather than boat. ''Is anyone saying this is a national crisis? One reason there is no outrage is that these people are mainly white and speak English. Is anyone demanding we clean out the backpackers' hostels of Bondi and Surry Hills?''

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...er--pity-that-its-not-rudd-20091028-hl00.html ........... For the full article.


----------



## bunyip (21 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> The control freak not being aware of deals being made regarding the biggest political headache he is currently handling?
> 
> Methinks Krudd is being a little "creative" with his "recollection of events".




Just the fact that the government wouldn't use force to remove them from the Oceanic Viking is, in itself, special treatment.

They'd have no hesitation is using force to remove you or me from a government vessel if we refused to budge.
But then again, I'm a white Australian - I'm used to being discriminated against.


----------



## Happy (22 November 2009)

Surprise surprise, riot between Afgan and Sirilancan refugees at Christmas Island Centre and who is to blame?

Australia, because we keep them in overcrowded detention centre!

I wander if anybody thought the people involved might do the same when allowed entry to Australian cities.

But then we pick up lots of people from war torn countries so we just have to brace and wear whatever comes our way.

Just perfect material for truly multicultural country boiler getting loaded to errupt one day.


----------



## Mofra (23 November 2009)

Boggo said:


> G'Day and welcome to a brand new edition of :
> 
> 
> ' ASYLUM '.
> ...



That (and the remainder of the post) could quite possibly the most inaccurate load of tripe posted on this thread thus far.

Any facts to add to appease the applaudits as well, or just more "brown people are bad, m'kay" type e-mail chains to post?


----------



## mellifuous (23 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> That (and the remainder of the post) could quite possibly the most inaccurate load of tripe posted on this thread thus far.
> 
> Any facts to add to appease the applaudits as well, or just more "brown people are bad, m'kay" type e-mail chains to post?




Hey, here's some figures given to me - if you show me that they're wrong then I'll take them off the site.

http://moneymagik.com/folly.php

I trusted the person who sent them to me .. maybe he's wrong.


----------



## noco (23 November 2009)

mellifuous said:


> Hey, here's some figures given to me - if you show me that they're wrong then I'll take them off the site.
> 
> http://moneymagik.com/folly.php
> 
> I trusted the person who sent them to me .. maybe he's wrong.




According to Andrew Bolt those figures are not true. It's been debunked!


----------



## mellifuous (23 November 2009)

noco said:


> According to Andrew Bolt those figures are not true. It's been debunked!




ok.. what are the figures then?

where do I find them?

I couldn't imagine the refugees going without a place to live, food, communications, education, health care, a capacity to travel.. etc... etc..


----------



## Buddy (23 November 2009)

mellifuous said:


> ok.. what are the figures then?
> 
> where do I find them?
> 
> I couldn't imagine the refugees going without a place to live, food, communications, education, health care, a capacity to travel.. etc... etc..




You can find the payment rates on the Centrelink website. The figures posted by mellifuos are not entirely correct. As they say there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You can manipulate figures to tell a story. 

The politicans may come out and condemn the emails and stories about refugees getting more than a pensioner and state that everyone gets equal treatment, which is trues. But................ in fact, refugees do get more.

Use an example of a "legal couple".
Assuming the pensioner satisfies income/asset eligibility, they couple get $506.50 each per fortnight (including supplements). "Moneymagic" is incorrect to say that the spouse allowance is $56/week, as if they are a "legal couple" then the spouse gets to full $505.50/fortnight. In addition there are potential pharmaceutical, telephone and utility allowances.

From what I can determine on Centrelink, the "refugee couple" get:-
a) Unemployment (Newstart allowance) $205.75/week each.
b) Rent assistance - because obviously they don't own a home, which is $151.26/week. It is normal/probable that the Australian pensioner owns their home, so they will not get that assistance. But if they did rent, then could get up to that amount.
c) Crisis payment, which refugees get but pensioners generally do not. Refugee couples would get a one off payment equal to 1 week's pension which amortises over 1 year to $9.73/week.
d) Now the question is - are refugees also entitled to the Special Benefit (which is equal to the Newstart allowance)? If they are, then there is an additional payment, each, of $205.75/week. This is the one I am unsure of, and Centrelink does not explain whether they get this, or not. But I bet they do get it.

So the total payment for a refugees couple is either $572.49/week, or $778.24 (depending on the answer to point (d)). Yearly, it is either $29,769 or $40,468.

A pensioner couple (own their home) get $506.50/week, which is $26,338/year.

In these calculations, I have ignored pharmaceutical, telephone and utility assistance because it is the same for both.

However you look at it, refugees do get more than pensioners (according to my interpretation of the Centrelink numbers). But I dont think "moneymagic" has it quite correct.

It's all very well for pollies to come out and say the story is a lie. But I say that if they are going to do that, then show us the "real" numbers. But they never do, do they?


----------



## mellifuous (23 November 2009)

Buddy said:


> You can find the payment rates on the Centrelink website. The figures posted by mellifuos are not entirely correct. As they say there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. You can manipulate figures to tell a story.
> 
> The politicans may come out and condemn the emails and stories about refugees getting more than a pensioner and state that everyone gets equal treatment, which is trues. But................ in fact, refugees do get more.
> 
> ...




Yes, well, it would be nice if they simply came out and gave us the exact figures ..

and yes, we may as well discount the fact that these 'pensioners' worked all their lives to make this country what is for us today.

I guess they really don't deserve much more than a boat load of refugees anyway.

That's all I had to contribute on this point.


----------



## staghorn (23 November 2009)

Buddy,
Refugees definitely couldn't get both Newstart and Special Benefit - nobody does.   One of the eligibility criteria for Special Benefit is that you cannot get any other payment from Centrelink - it is one or the other, never both.  I'm not sure why you say "I bet they do get it" when a Google search would quickly reveal the truth.
Cheers.


----------



## Julia (23 November 2009)

mellifuous said:


> Hey, here's some figures given to me - if you show me that they're wrong then I'll take them off the site.
> 
> http://moneymagik.com/folly.php
> 
> I trusted the person who sent them to me .. maybe he's wrong.



This rubbish has been doing the rounds of the internet for over a year.
See:
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/refugee-payment-hoax.shtml

It has already been debunked during the last month on this forum in probably three other threads.


----------



## Mofra (24 November 2009)

Worth noting that support given to refugees are done so _regardless of method of entry_, so they are not specific to "boat people".

In any case, whilst refugee status is being decided, they get no special assistance from the government (except if Rudd tries to play political handball with you obviously).


----------



## Buddy (24 November 2009)

staghorn said:


> Buddy,
> Refugees definitely couldn't get both Newstart and Special Benefit - nobody does.   One of the eligibility criteria for Special Benefit is that you cannot get any other payment from Centrelink - it is one or the other, never both.  I'm not sure why you say "I bet they do get it" when a Google search would quickly reveal the truth.
> Cheers.




Yes, OK, maybe you are correct. I was simply trying to interpret what Centrelink published. It's not easy trying to find out exactly what the rules are. I guess that's the big problem. It would be a change if the pollies actually came out with a plain language statement of exactly who get's what.
Nevertheless, from what I can understand from Centrelink, an "average refugee couple" get more cash than an "average pensioner couple". Isn't that the point?


----------



## Happy (24 November 2009)

Well, another boat is coming.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/23/2751273.htm?section=justin

It now appears to be “side” income for fishermen from India.

They bribe their way through Indonesia and if thrown to prison, facilities in Australia are much better that what they have home, so no worries for them it is a holiday.

And we pay the rest !!!


----------



## Mofra (24 November 2009)

Buddy said:


> Nevertheless, from what I can understand from Centrelink, an "average refugee couple" get more cash than an "average pensioner couple". Isn't that the point?



That depends - what is the average timeframe each couple receives the allowances? If a refugee couple stops earning the allowances after 6 months and starts paying taxes as income earners, then over the course of a year they may be tax-positive for the government. 
Pensioners will drain government coffers for the rest of their life. I could start a rant about why we should raise the age the pension starts but that is not for thsi thread


----------



## Buddy (24 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> That depends - what is the average timeframe each couple receives the allowances? If a refugee couple stops earning the allowances after 6 months and starts paying taxes as income earners, then over the course of a year they may be tax-positive for the government.
> Pensioners will drain government coffers for the rest of their life. I could start a rant about why we should raise the age the pension starts but that is not for thsi thread




Except that....some would say that pensioners have the right to a pension because of the tax they have paid during their working life, and what they have contributed to society in general. Refugess (boaties) have contributed nothing. Zip. Apart from the cash they receive, they are a drain on resources - navy, customs, police, immigration, the courts, etc, etc. This Australia sure is a golden honey pot, land of milk and honey.


----------



## Mofra (24 November 2009)

Buddy said:


> Except that....some would say that pensioners have the right to a pension because of the tax they have paid during their working life, and what they have contributed to society in general. Refugess (boaties) have contributed nothing. Zip. Apart from the cash they receive, they are a drain on resources - navy, customs, police, immigration, the courts, etc, etc.



a.  Assuming the pensioners _did_ in fact contribute.
b.  Assuming the refugees don't become productive members of society (and reserch suggests they are more likely to succeed than not, in many cases far more than Australians who were born here).



Buddy said:


> This Australia sure is a golden honey pot, land of milk and honey.



Which is why so many do succeed, in business & in life - they are granted opportunities they normally wouldn't have in their homeland. 

If you're worried about our levels of consolidated revenue, on facts you'd be trying to encourage immigration.


----------



## Tink (24 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> a.  Assuming the pensioners _did_ in fact contribute.
> b.  Assuming the refugees don't become productive members of society (and reserch suggests they are more likely to succeed than not, in many cases far more than Australians who were born here).
> 
> 
> ...




Spot on Mofra

Couldnt have said it better myself 

As if they sit there studying Centrelink pages - unbelievable


----------



## pilots (24 November 2009)

Tink said:


> Spot on Mofra
> 
> Couldnt have said it better myself
> 
> As if they sit there studying Centrelink pages - unbelievable




Tink, last year I applied for a Commonwealth seniors health card, as a self funded retiree I could not get one. What was of surprise to me was that 60% of all the people who was waiting to be served was NOT from Australia. We are the land of milk and honey, and welfare.


----------



## bellenuit (24 November 2009)

The boat people is a complex issue and I can see the arguments from both sides. But what riles me is the hypocrisy of our leaders.

When that boat (can't remember the name) caught fire and sunk last year, Rudd & Co chastised those who speculated on what had happened before the police enquiry was finished. What happened was fairly obvious to all, but we had to wait 6 months or so for the official report. That was because the obvious answer didn't suit their agenda and they wanted to defer it as long as possible.

Then a few days ago when there was a riot in the CI detention centre, Rudd & Co. were out saying that it was not due to overcrowding even though the police had yet to begin their investigation. No waiting when it suits them.


----------



## Julia (24 November 2009)

Tink said:


> As if they sit there studying Centrelink pages - unbelievable




Tink, have you ever had any extended contact with people claiming welfare benefits?
i.e. dealt with people who are part of multi-generational welfare families who have no intention whatsoever of making any contribution to Australia via the tax system or in any social sense?

Why should Pilots not feel resentful when he has presumably worked all his life to become a self funded retiree, thus not needing to rely on the taxpayer for his retirement years, only to be refused access to the meagre benefits provided by the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card?


----------



## Tink (25 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Tink, have you ever had any extended contact with people claiming welfare benefits?
> i.e. dealt with people who are part of multi-generational welfare families who have no intention whatsoever of making any contribution to Australia via the tax system or in any social sense?
> 
> Why should Pilots not feel resentful when he has presumably worked all his life to become a self funded retiree, thus not needing to rely on the taxpayer for his retirement years, only to be refused access to the meagre benefits provided by the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card?




Julia, 

Of course I feel for Pilots, but I wouldnt be blaming immigration for that 

There are plenty of Australians that have queued up in those offices generation upon generation, and no I dont know any. 

As you said, its against international law not to process these people, be it plane or boat. 

Thats the way it is with a treaty


----------



## Mofra (25 November 2009)

pilots said:


> Tink, last year I applied for a Commonwealth seniors health card, as a self funded retiree I could not get one. What was of surprise to me was that 60% of all the people who was waiting to be served was NOT from Australia. We are the land of milk and honey, and welfare.



So we dictate our federal policy on you perceptions of the line on one particular day at one Centrelink office?

How do you know 60% weren't Australian? Seems quite rude to interview a queue over their country of origin and whether they have subsequently obtained citizenship. Dare I suggest colour was an issue?


----------



## pilots (25 November 2009)

Mfr said:


> So we dictate our federal policy on you perceptions of the line on one particular day at one Cent relink office?
> 
> How do you know 60% weren't Australian? Seems quite rude to interview a queue over their country of origin and whether they have subsequently obtained citizenship. Dare I suggest color was an issue?




What I saw was 60% would not have been born here, yes color, dress, smell, inability to control large number children, was only some of the things that gave me the belief they was not born here, I could be wrong. Now as to citizenship they may have that, good on them, but what gives me dysentery is the fact I have paid tax's all my life and are ENTITLED to NOTHING. They on the other hand get, a house, the list is NEVER ENDING.


----------



## buttonzhu (25 November 2009)

bigdog said:


> I would imagine that the granting of visas for boat people costs Australian taxpayers from payment of benefits.
> 
> I assume that they will have very little when that arrive and the Australian taxpayers are requried to support them for considerable time!
> 
> What are the benefits paid for and the amounts paid to individual families.





That's interesting grant, I think it is not simply said benefit or not, it is political thing...


----------



## Julia (25 November 2009)

buttonzhu said:


> That's interesting grant, I think it is not simply said benefit or not, it is political thing...



Could you explain what you mean by the above?
Sorry, but I have no idea.


----------



## Mofra (25 November 2009)

pilots said:


> Now as to citizenship they may have that, good on them, but what gives me dysentery is the fact I have paid tax's all my life and are ENTITLED to NOTHING. They on the other hand get, a house, the list is NEVER ENDING.



This really seems like a generalisation and not based on anything factual at all. 
a.  Who gets a free house?
b.  Colour is an indication of ethnicity? We've had a Chinese population in Australia since the early 19th century!


----------



## pilots (25 November 2009)

Mofra said:


> This really seems like a generalisation and not based on anything factual at all.
> a.  Who gets a free house?
> b.  Colour is an indication of ethnicity? We've had a Chinese population in Australia since the early 19th century!




Trust me, I did not see any Chinese waiting in the line,(don't think you ever will) as to the free house, in Perth we have had people waiting for homes west house for YEARS, people with kids, Australian people, born here. Along come people from South Africa, and they get a homes west house on the spot, as they say they have no money, who pays for the house, the tax payer. Is that not a free house.


----------

