Border Security Rudd Weak

[Julia]

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

Thanks for your response, Fishbulb.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You MUST learn our language

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

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

Etc

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

 

[mellifuous]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chris45]

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

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

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

 

[Fishbulb]

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

Quiet you

 

[Fishbulb]

Thanks for your response, Fishbulb.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Chris45]

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

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

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

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

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

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

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

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

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

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

gg

 

[noco]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Julia]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[overule]

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

 

[Fishbulb]

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

 

[Fishbulb]

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

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

 

[Fishbulb]

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

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

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

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

But thanks for the welcoming words anyway.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

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

AUSTRALIA will likely take the vast bulk of Sri Lankan asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking that are deemed to be refugees, Immigration Minister Chris Evans says.

"Those that have been found to be refugees will be offered resettlement under the normal UNHRC (United Nations Human Rights Council) guidelines,'' Senator Evans said.

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

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

gg

 

[Wysiwyg]

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

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

gg

Give them golfing clubs and send them to Victoria.

 

[Julia]

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



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

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

gg

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Julia]

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

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Australia has lost face through Rudd's weakness.

gg

 

[Julia]

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

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

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

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

Personally I would welcome it.

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

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

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

gg