poor relative said...

Why should the fact that your born in a particular country in a particular political environment preclude you from health care, education, secure housing employment..........

So you're saying we should feel sorry for Americans and let them immigrate en masse? No thanks!

thats why you should all read UNCENSORED magazine..

(issue 19 out now...!)

theDoctor said...



thats why you should all read UNCENSORED magazine..

(issue 19 out now...!)

No... you're spelling it wrong!

It's spelled U N T R U T H E D magazine (repeat 18 of issue 1 out now)

And didn't it used to be called "Believe It Or Not"??

AquaPlow said...

Boats - Say 50 a year, 50 people on each = 2500 plus 150 crew. Illegal
Normal migration = just under 300,000 per year - Legal
Population - approx 22,000,000.
Boats = 0..01204%
Migration = 1.35%

Hmmmm, so the point you're trying to make is that the boats really are insignificant in the scheme of things? That would mean that the fact that we're even discussing this means that the media are doing their usual business and feeding out propaganda that's used as political ammunition that's purely based on the public's emotions, which the media increases through their level of airtime on the subject to gain public awareness, albeit mis-informed?

...you conspiracy guys got a spare foil hat for me?

The new way of saying "We're here!!!"

We are being played for fools.

ADS said...

C'mon people, can we get global warming into this debate now? the country is sinking you know

NO!

GypsyDrifter said...

Sixteen boats had been intercepted in March, one more than the previous record of 14 set in November 1999.

hehe...maths!
And before you reply...I realise that it's a cut'n'paste.

There are some advantages living on the other side of the country some times.

anyone else find it kinda ironic that someone that calls themselves 'GypsyDrifter' is so dead set against these other world travellers?
funny.

Who's afraid of 4500 boatpeople?

* Peter van Onselen, Contributing editor
* From: The Australian
* April 03, 2010 12:00AM

BOTH of the main political parties are keen to display their toughness on border protection, so much so that they seem to have lost sight of the plight of the people who are trying to make their way here in rickety boats.

While Kevin Rudd has softened elements of Australia's system for handling illegal boat arrivals, he isn't keen to advertise that and his rhetoric on boatpeople has been anything but soft. The opposition, meanwhile, is seriously contemplating a policy response that includes towing boats that enter our waters back out to sea. It's extraordinary.

Why are we so concerned about the 4500 or so boatpeople who have attempted to seek asylum in Australia since the ALP was elected about 2 1/2 years ago?

Yes, the numbers are higher than they were during the Howard years, as the Coalition nauseatingly continues to point out. And the upsurge may well be a consequence of a softening of the assessment processes since the Pacific solution was removed from the political lexicon.

But these numbers hardly suggest we are being inundated. We should remember the much larger number of refugees flowing into parts of Europe and Asia because of their proximity to conflict zones. Australia's refugee numbers will always be low because of something called the ocean.

The fact remains that the overwhelming majority of people who try to enter Australia illegally by boat are ultimately assessed to be legitimate refugees and are therefore included in Australia's annual refugee quota of 13,750.

Some commentators point out the unfairness of boatpeople taking up the places of asylum-seekers who have done the right thing and taken refuge in UN-sponsored camps awaiting placement (as if there is always an orderly process for escaping persecution that should be followed).

If that is the concern that needs to be addressed, what's wrong with increasing the annual quota so boatpeople don't take places away from asylum-seekers waiting in camps? We are constantly being told that a big Australia is an important economic goal, so perhaps we could do with the small number of extra citizens.

Despite the recent increase in boat arrivals that the opposition is determined to highlight for political advantage, many more people continue to arrive illegally by plane and far fewer of them turn out to be legitimate refugees.

Yet I don't see too many press releases from the opposition attacking this problem (probably because it has always been a problem, including when the Coalition was last in government).

And let's not forget that right now Australia houses about 50,000 visa overstayers, mostly from the US, Britain and China.

But the political debate is centred on boatpeople, partly because it plays into people's (inaccurate) fears about hordes of arrivals from underdeveloped countries who threaten our way of life, and partly because opinion polls continue to show that most Australians oppose illegal immigration.

The 2007 Australian Election Survey asked respondents to agree or disagree with the proposition that immigrants who are here illegally should not be allowed to stay for any reason. Fifty-six per cent agreed while less than 20 per cent disagreed. Of course the poorly worded question includes some of the other categories of illegal entrants mentioned, but respondents were likely thinking about boatpeople.

Since 2007, opinion polls continue to show that most Australians worry about illegal boat arrivals. Politicians are elected to reflect the public's will. But they are also elected to lead. Showing more compassion for some of the world's most marginalised people might not play to the masses, but a leader who encouraged the population to think that way would morph into a true statesman.

I find it disappointingly inconsistent that both of our political leaders, Rudd and Tony Abbott, wear their religion on their sleeves, yet neither of them practises the compassion that Christianity extols when it comes to boatpeople.

This is especially the case for Abbott, as the opposition is talking far tougher on how it intends to stop boat arrivals if elected. While Rudd talks tough, at least some of his actions on refugee policy have been compassionate.

Abbott has described the teaching of the Jesuits during his schooling as the greatest influence on his life. The Jesuits are part of the Catholic religious order founded by St Ignatius hundreds of years ago. The Australian Jesuits' website highlights that Jesuit spirituality "offers us a way to deepen our desire and commitment to help others, especially those in more urgent need and [with] less hope of help".

What class of people would be a more obvious contender for that category than boatpeople?

What's more, the Jesuit Refugee Service is one of the world's leading not-for-profit entities focused on helping refugees.

Abbott's combination of social conservatism and his Jesuit upbringing should make him a perfect candidate for being a more compassionate conservative. The term was first used by one of president Ronald Reagan's advisers to refer to the idea that there was a natural fit between conservatism and being compassionate because of the importance conservatives placed on family values.

Abbott's generous paid parental leave scheme fits into the compassionate conservative ethos, as would a more tolerant stand on asylum-seekers arriving by boat.

Instead Abbott has been applying the rhetoric of former Labor powerbroker Graham Richardson to asylum-seekers when he says that he will do whatever it takes to stop illegal boat arrivals, including restoring the Pacific solution.

With some predictions suggesting there will be as many as 70 more boat arrivals before the next election, the boatpeople issue won't go away and Abbott's rhetoric is designed to make this issue an election-winning one for the Coalition.

Right-wing American commentator P. J. O'Rourke adopts the sort of thinking about boatpeople that conservatives in this country should consider. He says he can't think of a more hardworking group of people who would contribute to the prosperity of a nation than individuals who are prepared to risk their lives in unsafe boats to get here.

Such people, if given the chance, often turn their attention when starting a new life to small business, a core Liberal Party constituency.

Australians shouldn't be afraid of boatpeople trying to come to our country. Our geographical position means that their numbers will always be small compared with refugee migration in other parts of the world.

It's time our politicians started to lead public opinion on this issue instead of following it.

Right on PR.

I'm sick of hearing how Australia is being over run by boat people. Its a load of BS. If people are worried about being over run then close down the airports. That will fix the problem up.

Of course that won't happen coz people are too used to flying to Bali and Hawaii for their holiday. So lets pick on the bastards that can't even get through an airport.

anglo australia has always needed someone to pick on and bully- the chinese during the gold days, the italian and greek WW2 refugees, the vietnamese refugees in the 70s and 80s, the lebanese in the 90s and early 2000s.
now its the turn of the "muslims" and the africans.

PM names Burke as 'population minister'

a wth minister...I wonder if this guy will deal with the so called "boat people" ?

"Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has been named as Australia's first population minister.
He will retain his other responsibilities, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced on Saturday."

poor relative said...

Who's afraid of 4500 boatpeople?

* Peter van Onselen, Contributing editor
* From: The Australian
* April 03, 2010 12:00AM

...blah blah,...
And let's not forget that right now Australia houses about 50,000 visa overstayers, mostly from the US, Britain and China.


more blah blah.. then;

I find it disappointingly inconsistent that both of our political leaders, Rudd and Tony Abbott, wear their religion on their sleeves, yet neither of them practises the compassion that Christianity extols when it comes to boatpeople.

a bit more blah,.. then;

It's time our politicians started to lead public opinion on this issue instead of following it.

Hopefully, the overstayers from the US, Britain and China will be either christian or athiest or some other religion that is not breeding and harbouring lunatics who are plotting our demise. To me, that makes them very much more acceptable in the long term.
They will blend in with our present population and in 20 or 30 years you wont even know they are here.

"The compassion that Christianity extols" towards others is NOT the same compassion that they exhibit towards us.
That should be taken into account before we throw our doors open to all and sundry.

It is an accepted principle when fostering children that they be fostered into a family of the same ethnic background as themselves.
The same principle is valid for accepting new arrivals into our country.
Hindu people should go to hindu countries.
Muslim people to muslim countries.
Christian people to christian countries.
There are a lot of countries of the same culture as these people between their country and ours. Best they stop there.
Any significant departure from this is making a huge problem for future generations.

If you want proof of this, turn on the telly and watch some graphic footage of the carnage that is going on in Russia at the moment due to Chechnyan terrorists who now feel they are culturally sufficiently different that they should be a separate country.
Chechnya did not always have a large number of muslims. At some earlier point in history they migrated there.
The first few hundred were probably no problem.
Neither were the next few thousand.
But somwhere between then and now, as the numbers increased, differences in opinion as to how the country should be run came up resulting in the present long drawn out discontent, conflict and now bloodshed.
It's an often repeated situation and we should learn from it.

Maybe our politicians have thought more than 3 years ahead and that's why they are not showing "christain compassion" on this matter.

pweedas said...


Hopefully, the overstayers from the US, Britain and China will be either christian or athiest or some other religion that is not breeding and harbouring lunatics who are plotting our demise. To me, that makes them very much more acceptable in the long term.

Your statement is racist

Judging an entire people on their spiritual belief to all be of the same bent ie extremists is wrong.

Essentially what you are saying is if your not anglo-saxon christian then you present as a threat to 'our' way of life - arent we multicultural?

What is this mystical Aussie way of life anyway and who defines it ?

Oh and don't forget Hitler was a christian.

pweedas said...

racist blah blah blah.........

Hindu people should go to hindu countries.
Muslim people to muslim countries.
Christian people to christian countries.

blah blah more claptrap blah .........

Segregation breeds contempt and starts wars.

pweedas said...

Why spread the disease to Australia?

I agree treat people before you grant them asylum.

pweedas said...

The problems in the countries like Sudan / Darfur are due to cultural differences.

I guess living in Australia and Ch7 news or today tonight being your main source of international affairs has its downsides.

Problems in Sudan Dafur have nothing to do with culture,
The simplistic explanation is that Sudanese troops are trying to put down a rebel movement, bombing towns and villages suspected of supporting insurgents. Rights groups also accuse the government of committing ethnic cleansing and backing the raiding militia. Khartoum denies this, saying the militia are merely outlaws. This has been happening since 2003 however unrest in the area has been going on for much longer.

Makes you wonder if the west had a stake in Sudaneese oil whether there would be more western intervention?

Did somebody say Global Warming?

I'm with AquaPlow on this, I don't see a problem.

I would let them land and try and make it down to a major city... if they make it; "Welcome to Australia Mate, here's a beer".

Instead we intercept them 1/2 way, then imprison them in Christmas Island or fly them to a major city... wtf!

@GypsyDrifter: How did the boat call 000?
Hello, hello, hello is this Australia? Please pick us up 120km NW of Christmas Island.