Smedg,
With your posts I find it difficult to follow your train of thought. This is probably because of your writing style which is probably a trait of your personality type.

If you read a book titled "Personality Plus" by Florence Littauer you will see described the four main personality types and their variations.

Yes, this is off topic but may help with clearer understanding of each other.

This is absolutely not a labelling or boxing of people or characters as we are all unique.

The Four Main Types are:-

Popular Sanguine; The Extrovert. The Talker. The Optimist.

Perfect Melancholy; The Introvert. The Thinker. The Pessimist.

Powerful Choleric; The Extrovert. The Doer. The Optimist.

Peaceful Phlegmatic; The Introvert. The Watcher. The Pessimist.

According to Florence we are all dominant in one of these types with influence from one or more of the other types in varying degrees.

I am picking you as a Sanguine with a bit of Choleric and some Melancholy. I bet you love socialising, dining out and travel. I am sure your avatar does.

My personality is predominantly Melancholy with a good bit of Choleric and probably some Phlegmatic. Nothing short of neatness and tidyness is acceptable in my household. When I fix something it stays fixed but it sometimes takes a while to get around to fixing it. I do enjoy a variety of acquaintences though which shows some Sanguine traits.

I don't recall ever finding something morally objectionable in any of your posts but just am not sure where you are going because of the flowery stuff you couch it in.

An observation, NOT a criticism. Don't change nothin' in the way you post or anything else because of anything I or anybody else says.

This is a really great forum and IMHO, My Space, Face Book etc, etc are not a scratch on it.

Back to the subject of the thread:- Illegal Immigration in leaky boats.

I DO believe we (via our government) should say "Enough is enough!!!!". If you attempt to arrive in Australian Territory illegally, on boats owned by people smugglers or any other illegal means, you WILL be transported back to your country of origin.

Achieving legal residency in Australia is not the solution to their problem.

Achieving a legal and just governmental system and judiciary in their country IS the solution to their problem.

getfunky said...

Why is no-one upset about the vastly higher numbers (50,000 when i last checked a year or so ago) of poms and seppos who illegally (yes genuinely illegally - no if's no but's) stay in Oz without a valid visa.

Oh yeh - it coz they look like us.

They work illegally, they pay no taxes, they even claim the kn dole etc. But hey they look like us so it's awright I spose. Right?

That number again - 50,000. Should we ALL be cranky about that?

Yes.
But we can't all be cranky because that name and avatar is already taken.

(Sorry. Back on track now. )
There are some differences though.
After they finish their holiday, most of them will choose to go back home.

getfunky said...


They work illegally, they pay no taxes, they even claim the kn dole etc. But hey they look like us so it's awright I spose. Right?

I know the government and center-link have their head...hmmm...in the sand..
but can some one tell me how the hell they claim the dole..if they are illegal ..

Man if some one can tell me how they do this..I would sign up to suss them out and kick their sorry behinds back to were they came.

hell how does an over - stayer collect the dole...I would like to know ...

The order of things would run:

1. Enter quaint country of loyal convicts (and a handful dodgy boat arrivals - that seem jolly unpopular).

2. Get on dole next day.
An old housemate of mine yrs ago did exactly this the day after he arrived (he was too sh!tfaced on the day he arrived and had to be assisted by 3 staff off the plane.. I kid you not). BTW - I believe Ozzys can expect a similar entitlement (or used to be able too) in the UK. They love a loyal convict.

3. Enjoy the dole - and cashy work - for the length of visa.
Er.. this is bit is not based on my old housemate just to clarify. And he.. eventually.. became a dinky di (probably fugee loathing) Ozzy citizen. He's right here with us - bless him - he looks (pretty much) just like us.

4. Not really bother to do anything about the expiration of visa coz now have enough of a cashy network to get by.. will just dos er until I feel like sumpin else. 49999 other geezas can't be wrong.

pweedas said...
I have asked the question before and not got any answer.
Here it is again.
If you relax the restrictions on unauthorised arrivals, when the flood starts coming in, at what point do you say stop?

And when you say stop, what measures will you put in place to enforce that edict?

The problem is out of hand already so NOW is a good time to stop.

Keep the facility on Christmas Island to detain all illegal immigrants no matter how they arrive in Australian Territory.

The only processing done there would be determining what is their country of origin. If they try to foil that by ditching their papers use DNA testing to determine which is their most likely place of origin.

Once a determination has been made, transport them back to their place of origin.

As a little extra disincentive, execute the people smugglers and destroy their vessels.

If the vessels are intercepted by the Navy before landing and have entered or are about to enter Australian waters, an order from the Captain such as " Twenty 50 cal. rounds over their heads Buffer." will certainly give them something to think about.

A very clear message needs to be sent.

People smugglers are the cause of the problem so they should be targeted and harshly punished for their actions. Their stock in trade is human misery.

Seems to me the Indonesian Authorities are turning a blind eye to it. In that country, put enough rupiah in the right hands and the rules will disappear.

We need a "practical reality".

pweedas said...

Anyone who arrives in Australia without authorisation is automatically here illegally.

maxm said...

Actually, not illegal. Quite the opposite! A lot of people get that wrong about this issue. Almost none of them have done anything wrong and we treat them worse than convicted serial murders, men, women, children, whether innocent or guilty. Frankly, I find that shameful.

...back on page 2. And similar rebuttals repeated since by others.

Incidentally, I'd hate to be a New Zealander sailing my yacht across the ditch to Australia for a holiday to visit my auntie Flo under your regime pweedas! Seems I'd be automatically illegal and subject to imprisonment.

pweedas said...

Here it is again.
If you relax the restrictions on unauthorised arrivals, when the flood starts coming in, at what point do you say stop?

And when you say stop, what measures will you put in place to enforce that edict?

Smedg said...

As for you saying "I keep asking, at what point do we draw the line and how do we then stop the flow that we have established?
Otherwise, it would only stop when this country became as bad as the country they are seeking to escape.
So far, no answers from anyone."........ Man you could really benefit from challenging where some of your thoughts are coming from.

It seems almost unhelpful to respond to this question as you've really made some pretty massive assumptions... firstly that a time is likely to come where we should see ourselves as more important than others...?? Secondly that the flow of refugees to Australia is a negative thing...?? Thirdly that 'we established' the flow...?? Remember asylum seeking is about 'push factors' not 'pull factors' Next, (as the role of assumptions based possibly on underlying and unrecognised preconceptions about refugees continues) you assume that people seeking desperately to escape violence are going to somehow 'make our country as bad as the one they are trying to escape'.. Is it not what they are escaping that makes you refer to their county as bad??? why would they escape war then start war???

... and so on.

Your questions have been answered, pweedas, just that you're ignoring them. You should try reading them sometime.

Cisco why do you still (incorrectly) refer to the boat arrivals as illegal immigrants? You are 10% correct - 90% incorrect.

Can you please explain why you are not referring to the boat arrivals as refugees? [EDIT: Er.. bit tired today - maybe you are meaning to detain the 10% that aren't refugees at CI?]


Using inflamatory language and misleading terms for these arrivals is why the whole issue gets people so irate and why the govt ends up creating dodgy policy and spending far more $$ than is neccesary.

It is also why instead of having to fix hospitals, teacher salaries, etc etc both sides of govt get a complete free kick and don't have to focus on far more important policies for the next election and the near future.

Is that what anybody really wants? Stuff the actual factors that affect our health and future as long as we sort out a couple of hundred genuine refugees? And we criticise polies for pulling the wool over our eyes when we get around with an ugg boot on our noggin.

omg omg omg. haha. Man this thread is getting long.

@ Cisco...
Lot of probablies in that first sentence of the post that's nearly all about me. haha i'm honoured. Maybe some truth in there, who knows. Thanks for the recommended reading by the way, oh and good luck keeping that house tidy...

Perhaps my writing is hard to follow because of my personality or lack of written skill. (I did notice you are much better at using the return key than me ) I'd like to think that maybe somethings I said were hard to follow for another reason... Maybe we think very differently and bring very different perspectives to the argument. If so this would require me to think very differently than usual to follow your comments from your point of view (which initially appears to me to be a little ignorant, old fashioned and racist). I assume you don't see your comments that way? Similarly, you could try to read my posts from my point of view which may initially appear to you to be a function of my personality traits, overly optimistic and possibly not realistically practical. (I don't see them that way)

I've come to think that its far more productive to challenge thought processes than personality types so whilst my personality may not change greatly, I'll change in other ways. I'll keep an open mind when listening to others view points etc. That way I can continue to challenge my preconceptions and beliefs in light of new evidence.

@ GD, Cisco and Pweeds
Nothing more damaging than being inflexible and unable or unwilling to change our beliefs. That rigidness and closed mindedness can lead to horrible things like religious extremism or racial intolerance or judging others before knowing them.. You know like presuming guilt before a fair trail. Like saying someone is an Illegal Immigrant and detaining them until later finding oh **** what they really needed was asylum not more abuse of their human rights.

In terms of 'practical reality' No problem is ever solved durably unless its solution is
1. Practical (as suggested by cisco) But wait there's a number 2..
2. Mutually agreeable to those effected.

Unless these two criteria are met. The problem will go unsolved for at least one (but likely two or more) parties involved.

Case in point:
If we continue to look towards 'solutions' that only address concerns about australia's safety, we are only looking at options that involve imposing our will. Refugees will still need somewhere safe to go. Even if we had no empathy for anyone other than people already here, we would still be left with people trying to get here if it seems like a safer option. Thinking this way leads to comments like cisco made earlier about the option of deterring by executing of people smugglers. Or comments like Pweeds made earlier about policies needing to be tougher. Both of these options seem (IMO) to rely on ignoring human rights and ignoring our inherent ability to empathise.

For those who find my posts 'hard to follow'. The Gfunk has expressed sentiments similar to how I feel on the issue in a far more concise way.

I have elaborated because I've had time and because (IMO) some views expressed seem likely to lead to more intolerance, more abuse of human rights and therefore more problems.

Insert face palm - HERE

This is what i am talking about Pweedas..

When you introduce a totally random and unrelated topic - such as dodgy religous zealots - you are inferring that they are related to the topic of refugee arrivals.

Even if you don't mean to do so there are far too many Pauline Hanson lovers out there who will happily jump on the bandwagon and completely associate these two TOTALLY unrelated topics.

Stop it. Don't spread ignorance and confusion. Breeding rascism and xenophobia is a bigger threat to the fabric of our society than accomadating a few refugees. Start a diff thread if you want to criticise the dodgy zealot but don't muddy the waters on a diff issue.

You a pollie or sumpin Pweed?

maxm said...

Incidentally, I'd hate to be a New Zealander sailing my yacht across the ditch to Australia for a holiday to visit my auntie Flo under your regime pweedas! Seems I'd be automatically illegal and subject to imprisonment.

New Zealand and Australia have special bilateral arrangements for travel, commerce and a few other things. I have no problem with that.
I would have a problem if the same arrangements existed for many other countries, including Indonesia, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Why do you introduce such irrelevant nonsense into the discussion?

pweedas said...

Here it is again.
If you relax the restrictions on unauthorised arrivals, when the flood starts coming in, at what point do you say stop?

And when you say stop, what measures will you put in place to enforce that edict?

Smedg said...

As for you saying "I keep asking, at what point do we draw the line and how do we then stop the flow that we have established?
Otherwise, it would only stop when this country became as bad as the country they are seeking to escape.
So far, no answers from anyone."........ Man you could really benefit from challenging where some of your thoughts are coming from.

It seems almost unhelpful to respond to this question as you've really made some pretty massive assumptions... firstly that a time is likely to come where we should see ourselves as more important than others...?? Secondly that the flow of refugees to Australia is a negative thing...?? Thirdly that 'we established' the flow...?? Remember asylum seeking is about 'push factors' not 'pull factors' Next, (as the role of assumptions based possibly on underlying and unrecognised preconceptions about refugees continues) you assume that people seeking desperately to escape violence are going to somehow 'make our country as bad as the one they are trying to escape'.. Is it not what they are escaping that makes you refer to their county as bad??? why would they escape war then start war???

maxm said...
... and so on.

Your questions have been answered, pweedas, just that you're ignoring them. You should try reading them sometime.

maxmus, I read it a number of times because I found it hard to imagine that such a lot would be written and still NOT answer the question.
I do NOT consider the response "Man you could really benefit from challenging where some of your thoughts are coming from" an answer to the question.
That, and the following spray was more of a rebuttal that I should even have the right to ask the question.

You could respond to it yourself perhaps, with a direct and logical answer, not a politicians answer or just a vague "area spray"
( A politicians answer is when you don't have an acceptable answer to the question asked so you answer a different question, or just initiate a policy speech. They do it often because they think we are too dumb to notice. )

If you can't supply a direct and relevant answer to that I will have to conclude that you refuse to answer the question because it is so obvious that the answer will destroy your argument.

Here it is again; {cut/paste}
If you relax the restrictions on unauthorised arrivals, when the flood starts coming in, at what point do you say stop?

And when you say stop, what measures will you put in place to enforce that edict?

Just focus on that question ONLY and post a relevant response. Please.

So far only ONE reply, from cisco.
I find it hard to believe he is the only person who could understand the question.

getfunky said...

Insert face palm - HERE

This is what i am talking about Pweedas..

When you introduce a totally random and unrelated topic - such as dodgy religous zealots - you are inferring that they are related to the topic of refugee arrivals.

Even if you don't mean to do so there are far too many Pauline Hanson lovers out there who will happily jump on the bandwagon and completely associate these two TOTALLY unrelated topics.

Stop it. Don't spread ignorance and confusion. Breeding rascism and xenophobia is a bigger threat to the fabric of our society than accomadating a few refugees. Start a diff thread if you want to criticise the dodgy zealot but don't muddy the waters on a diff issue.

You a pollie or sumpin Pweed?

Sorry GF. I agree it was a cheap shot but it just came on the radio as I was replying to these posts and it is vaguely relevant, but not very helpful.
The same happens when I am posting at night with the world news in the background. Every night it has similar reports and they probably flavour some of my responses.
I gave you a green thumb for you reply to this one.
I would give myself a red thumb but it doesn't work.
Anyway, looks like I don't have to. Someone is doing it for me.

And no. Definitely NOT a pollie. Geez.
If I was a pollie I would have inserted a few election speeches in by now.

The "or sumpin" ? Well I guess that depends on how wide the definition is.

getfunky said...

Fair enough Pweedas - top marks for copping it sweet.

I haven't harped on about it but the media has a lot to answer for in this country. All of the outlets including good ol' Aunty are happy to gloss over more pressing real issues and run with whatever strikes a chord with the public.

It used to be that the news media was there to inform, but more n more they seem to be there to keep us ignorant. Don't fall for it.

It is no accident that an article on boat arrivals will be preceded/followed by an article on radical mufti/population explosion/lebbo gangs etc etc. The media outlets know these issues are unrelated but they are happy to infer they are cause it makes a reaction a certainty. You are not alone there Pweedas.

Yeh - admitedly I was simplifying the Nairu/Indo/Oz comparison but basically Oz and Indo want to just push the boats onto the next reception.

Well said Funky...

Most of the media outlets in Australia have their varying depths of carp journalism. Insiders on ABC seems to have some degree of rational thought and discussion. The rest are pretty bad...

getfunky said...

When you introduce a totally random and unrelated topic - such as dodgy religous zealots - you are inferring that they are related to the topic of refugee arrivals.

Even if you don't mean to do so there are far too many Pauline Hanson lovers out there who will happily jump on the bandwagon and completely associate these two TOTALLY unrelated topics.

Sort of like GWB using Sept. 11 to link Afghanistan and bin Laden/Al Qaida to Iraq and Hussein ...

getfunky said...

Cisco why do you still (incorrectly) refer to the boat arrivals as illegal immigrants? You are 10% correct - 90% incorrect.

Can you please explain why you are not referring to the boat arrivals as refugees?

Whether they are refugees or immigrants in the 90% - 10% proportion or not is not really relevant.

Any vessel that enters Australian waters unannounced is 100% illegal.

If Kevin the Kiwi sails his yacht to Australia to visit his Aunty Flo without announcing his intentions, he will be quite severely punished for doing so.

Even if an Aussie who has been doing some international cruising on his yacht (which before he departs must be an Aus Registered ship) returns to Aus unannounced, Customs, Quarantine, Immigration and the Courts will empty his wallet at the very least.

It will even cost him plenty if he does not arrive at or close to his E.T.A.

If the alleged refugee is from Iraq, Afghanistan or Sri Lanka, there are many countries between Australia and their respective points of origin.

Are Australia and New Zealand the only countries in the Eastern hemisphere that are signed up to the international conventions on refugees.

I believe there is a 90% - 10% proportional split in the 100% illegal boat arrivals, 90% economic refugees and 10% maybe political refugees.

Why do they go to such great lengths and make such hazardous journeys to come to Australia. I think they are very misinformed about life in Australia and they see Australia as a welfare "soft touch".

I try mentally to put myself in their shoes and think about moving into a totally different culture, language difficulties, economic uncertainty, food and shelter and conclude that my life would have to be in imminent danger before I would attempt such thing.

They obviously have some money else they would not get here.

Don't know what the red thumbs are all about. Most of what I said is just statement of fact.

OK. Fair enough. Let's stop with the semantics.

They are attempting to gain residency in Australia on the pretext of being persecuted at their place of origin so therefore they are "asylum seekers". I have no problem with that.

My understanding of the refugee protocols is this:-

1. They are processed to determine the truth of their claims.
2. Not true - deported. True - grant temporary residency visa.
3. Risk assessed. Low risk - allowed to enter community. High risk - detained.
4. Persecution at their place of origin ceases - repatriated.

This is all fair and what is expected of us under the international conventions and I totally agree with it.

Immigration, legal or not is a completely seperate issue. The genuine asylum seeker should have no expectation of achieveing permanent residency.

Concise Oxford Dictionary:-
asylum, Sanctuary, place of refuge...
refuge, shelter from pursuit or danger or trouble; person, thing, course, that gives shelter or is resorted to in difficulties....

There is no doubt that many people are using the refugee/asylum seeker ticket as a fast track/que jumping tool for immigration.