Leaky Boat

[trainspotter]

ARRIGHT ! I understand we have another thread about Green Light Asylum Seekers BUT - Here we go:

It is time to air the dirty laundry. On August 26, 2001, the MV Tampa rescued 438 asylum-seekers from a distressed craft in international waters.

John Howard said this "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."

Was the Tampa Crisis the catalyst of how we think as a populace on migration? We as a free thinking voter/country agreed at the time. What went wrong? What has changed? Why can we not take our quota? Are we as a country "xenophobic". Is the Malaysian Solution workable? Is it possible to assimilate with foreigners?

Confabulate:-

 

[Wysiwyg]

A good quality human being should be the primary prerequisite. Aiming to integrate into the Australian way of life with good work/social/breeding ethics, sense of humour and the desire to change their silly former country beliefs. May I even suggest wear clothing for clothing sake and not clothing as a statement of former nationality or religion.

 

[sails]

Here's a few thoughts, TS:

What went wrong? - Rudd wrecked the working solution?

What has changed? - as above

Why can we not take our quota? - does all the quota have to come from boat arrivals, some of whom seem to be here for the welfare prize? Why can't we take in more skilled migrants from a wider variety of other countries?

Are we as a country "xenophobic". - I don't think we are generally xenophobic, however, when many asylum seekers seem to belong to one religion that doesn't seem to assimilate well with their new countries, it tends to get the hackles up.

Is the Malaysian Solution workable? - Doesn't sound like a good thing with the unfair swap deal and potential torture to those we send. What is wrong with Nauru with TPVs? The graphs posted elsewhere clearly show it worked well in deterring potential welfare rorters while still giving a place of shelter for any genuine refugees.

Is it possible to assimilate with foreigners? - I think it is provided they are willing to assimilate with us. Again, most of the boat arrivals seem to be from one religious/political group who generally don't seem keen to assimilate or learn English. I think assimilation has to be a two way thing.

 

[tothemax6]

Was the Tampa Crisis the catalyst of how we think as a populace on migration? We as a free thinking voter/country agreed at the time. What went wrong? What has changed? Why can we not take our quota? Are we as a country "xenophobic". Is the Malaysian Solution workable? Is it possible to assimilate with foreigners?

Suppose one were to magically add to Thailand's population such that there was a resulting even amount of every ethnic group in the world. What would the term 'Thailand' then mean? It would mean absolutely nothing - it would be a mere noise resonating through peoples minds from a time when it meant something.

It is precisely the isolation created by nations and states that allows the preservation of cultural differences. A 'border-less nation' is an oxymoron. It is the geo-demographic discontinuity that allows nations to be generated and sustained. Were there no borders, be they created by lines on maps enforced by governments, or by social exclusion or self-favoritism, there would be no nations.

The tone that always comes across in the media is that there is something wrong with borders. That whenever anyone should bump into the border, looking to live here, it is immoral for people to even think that these people should fail to cross it. This tone has a very obvious philosophical underpinning: the Australian nation should not exist - and most ironically it is always those who are the most 'Australian' (most continuous with prior generations) who are spouting this.

Xenophobic? This would refer to 'hating/fearing foreigners'. Another extreme would perhaps be 'Autophobic' - 'hating the self', as indulged in by the Left.
The rational and correct belief lies in between: 'believing foreigners and Australians should exist'.

 

[Happy]

A good quality human being should be the primary prerequisite. Aiming to integrate into the Australian way of life with good work/social/breeding ethics, sense of humour and the desire to change their silly former country beliefs. May I even suggest wear clothing for clothing sake and not clothing as a statement of former nationality or religion.

I could not say it better myself.

We have (from memory) something like 140 different religions registered in Australia and in my opinion is all hocus-pocus, actually old way of controlling masses.
You do this, obey that, don't question and so on...

I don't think I will live long enough to see all the religions to drop down in importance and be only used to comfort one or help, not to control as it is now.

Why should poor cow be killed in old barbaric way?
If new way with stun-gun is not less barbaric, but at least animal physical suffering is shortened a bit.

 

[So_Cynical]

The thing i really like about the Malaysian Solution is the fact that the refugees that do end up coming here will be genuine poor refugees...not ones with relatives in Australia that are paying for their tickets, making the smugglers rich.

 

[trainspotter]

One of the best pieces of literary I have read in a long time.

All of the positive attitudes of Australians to Asian countries and migrants from them are ignored by the likes of David Day, who see themselves as wardens needing to protect Asians and non-whites against the horrid Australians. It is almost as if the likes of Mr Day are defined by a penal colony psyche except the scorn that was originally directed towards convicts, then Chinese, has now been directed onto Australians. That scorn allows Mr Day and co to see themselves as superior.

The identity requires that all non-whites be defined as ethnic, and that examples of hostility towards them be exaggerated to portray Australians in a negative way. Subsequently, the David Days can portray themselves as the saviours that will punish the racist Australian and protect the non-white victims.

Unfortunately, whites such as David Day bring conflict. By constantly reinforcing the stereotype that Australians are racist, some Australians decide to act in conformity to the stereotype by just becoming racist. Furthermore, by constantly attacking Australia, the Australians act just the same as other people do around the world when their culture is attacked, they defend it. Although this doesn’t cause racial problems when it is white Australians fighting white Australians, it does cause problems when non-whites conform to the ideology of David Day and join in the attacks. This inevitably results in an ethnic versus Australian social dynamic that breeds some unsavoury attitudes.

http://www.convictcreations.com/history/whiteaustralia.htm

 

[Knobby22]

Howard said his statement and then trippled immigration.

It allowed him to send out wolf whistles against immigration by concetrating on asylum seekerss while he quitely increased the immigration rate to our highest level as a precentage of population ever. Most people fell for it.

Labor agreed with the policy hence their silence and continuation of it.

We should take our fair share of refugees as after all we caused a lot of it.

 

[Glen48]

Think any one who sells every thing they own, takes their family in a leaky boat with out knowing any one on board or who to trust should be looked at as a fighter.

The ones who win are the all paid for migrants who are helpedo scam and can hide behind the office of Migration legal department.
If the person in question has tried to get in to other countries with out success no one can tell you due to invasion of privacy and therefore you can not work with all the facts.
Once here they have to keep low for a few years and they are home free for the taxpayer to support.
While you keep voting you will have this problem.

 

[Julia]

Howard said his statement and then trippled immigration.

It allowed him to send out wolf whistles against immigration by concetrating on asylum seekerss while he quitely increased the immigration rate to our highest level as a precentage of population ever. Most people fell for it.

Labor agreed with the policy hence their silence and continuation of it.

We should take our fair share of refugees as after all we caused a lot of it.

The tone of your post is critical of John Howard, but isn't the action you describe entirely in accord with his statement "we will decide who comes to this country and the means by which they come"?

People who have already been assessed as genuine refugees are surely what constituted the increased level of immigration to which you refer.

So what's the problem?

PS I agree that we have an obligation to take reasonable numbers of genuine refugees from countries where the "coalition of the willing" caused the conditions from which they are fleeing.