13 July 2016

Dutton offensive on asylum-seekers

| John Hargreaves
Join the conversation
84
ss new australia

When I came to Australia in 1952, I couldn’t speak English, I couldn’t count to 10 and I came by boat. If Minister Dutton had been on the wharf, would he have turned my boat back?

I know heaps of people who run restaurants, market stalls, who are builders and taxi drivers. I know many hard-working people who clean other people’s toilets and bathrooms, who tend other people’s gardens and do menial jobs because those jobs are available because Australian-born people won’t do them.

Almost all of them couldn’t speak English when they came to Australia and hardly any of them have taken jobs of Australian-born people; neither have they spent a lot of time on the dole queue.

I have met a few old blokes who plied their trade, without the benefit of English, on the Snowy Hydro scheme. Nuff said.

Snowy hydro

And I remember in about 1975 and 1976, people saying that our Australian way of life is under threat from the Vietnamese invasion by leaky boats. They were going to destroy our way of life and take our jobs. Sound familiar?

asylum seekers

As an aside and to show another similarity, we had bombed their country to blazes to fight an anti-West ideology far from our shores and these people were the victims of that war. Sound a bit like Iraq, Afghanistan? Syria?

I also know of a couple of Australian-born people who work the required number of hours in a volunteer capacity deliberately so that they can satisfy the dole test requirement where, if you do the required hours of volunteer work, you don’t have to show that you have submitted job applications. Sound like a dole bludger to you?

I understand, anecdotally, that in Nimbin and Kuranda in Queensland, it is the accepted way of life to have the major source of one’s income from the public purse in lieu of actual manual or intellectual labour, for which a wage is paid and taxes duly handed over.

So Minister Dutton has raised the spectre once again that these asylum-seekers, speaking no English and being largely illiterate in their own language, being innumerate and stealing places in the dole queue, are a major threat to our way of life.

Rounding the numbers just for ease of imagery, the Libs want a limit of 15,000, Labor 34,000 and the Greens 50,000.

From where I’m sitting, I can’t see a huge threat from an influx of genuine refugees numbering less than half the number of people who live in Tuggeranong. I can’t see my lifestyle being threatened by a small number of folk being brought here from the misery of Manus and Nauru as a gesture of humanity, with no guarantee of repetition. I can’t see any chance of the menial jobs like fruit picking being threatened by the acceptance of these asylum-seekers.

But I can see a scare campaign taking hold. It is sad that those who wouldn’t apply for a cleaner’s job, a fruit picker’s job, a menial task, would deny someone who deserves a break.

It’s sad that those whose employment results in a financial return that can raise the deposit for a number of negatively geared properties or island-based investment strategies, whose philosophy is the trickle-down effect (while not actually doing it), can’t see that our nation was built by these hard-working, salt of the earth type folks.

My own party, the ALP, is a bit better in that they want to raise the intake figures but anything short of closing Manus and Nauru and opening on-shore processing centres, will not satisfy me.

The Greens will never be in power anyway so they can take a moral high ground as usual.

Oh, back to the beginning. I came to Australia in 1952, aged three years old. Naturally, English was not my strong suit, neither was counting and I lived in two process centres for the next six years. And when I left school to find work having not completed high school, I refused to apply for the dole and did whatever I could find.

I say bring them in, welcome them in, and reap the benefits.

Join the conversation

84
All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
LatestOldest

Peter Smith said :

Thank you, Mordd, for your reply.

I do want to make one further comments on this though, because this is the comment I most typically get back:

gooterz said :

dungfungus said :

I will not deny that there are some muslim males who hold abhorrent attitudes towards women. But I would contend that the numbers are often exaggerated for media effect and propoganda. Do you know or have ever met any muslim people in your own life, like the ones who have successfully transitioned to living in Australia? I would suggest you ask a muslim this exact question and they will explain that while an extreme minority are like that, most muslims do not believe such things.

In answer: yes, I have met many muslims in my line of work. Many. I do not really want to say much more about that, except that experiences are mixed and cultural differences can be vast.

You’re correct that I do not have any close muslim friends. Truth be told, I don’t think I really have any seriously practising Christian friends, either, or Buddhist for that matter. Mine is a secular circle. But I know a number of muslim people on a friendly enough basis – parents of children’s friends, associates at work etc. Individually, they are more more or less likeable or reliable or affable than anyone else. I have no problem with any individual. It is views on mass.

Most muslims don’t support ISIS, that is a given. Most don’t support slavery or anything of the other rubbish like that. And sure, the the risk of terrorist nutters exists everywhere and I doubt muslim immigration would seriously increases the risk of a terrorist attack (although I do think that many people with that kind of psychosis are now attracted to extreme Islam as an outlet for those urges, and the leaders of ISIS know that and use it).

But it is wrong to say that, en mass, the views of Muslims on women are no different to the views of Christianity. Have you, Mordd, studied Islam, the Koran, the hadiths in any depth? I have, and I did well before 9/11 made Islam such a hot topic. Islam is not a ‘take it or leave it’ religion like (most forms of ) Christianity or Buddhism. To most Muslims, the Koran is the word of God, dictated to Muhammed, as his prophet and messsenger. And the Koran is not just a religious document, it s a social, political and economic system. Highly divided gender roles and rights are an inherent part of that system. Look at the altrenative Cairo declaration on human rights to see how fundamental these differences are. Look also at thes poll after poll of muslims, including muslims who has spent significant time in the West (for example, look here: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-women-in-society/ but there are plenty of others).

Again, these differences are not a problem when society is diverse, but they will become a problem is society becomes heavily Islam. Let’s take something as innocuous as inheritance laws. We have gender-neutral intestacy laws, but let us say the muslim population reaches, say 20%. In that scenario, there is going to be serious pressure on our democractic systems to recognise some exceptions to equality for, for example, for Islamic inheritance. And then what about Islam divorce laws? Child custody? Should one group of women be treated as less equal than another in the name of diversity? And if we accept one group as unequal, what ramafications does that have for the rest of us?

I would just like to provide a comparison again:

“Judaism is not a ‘take it or leave it’ religion like (most forms of ) Christianity or Buddhism. To most Jews, the Torah is the word of God, dictated to Moses, as his prophet and messsenger. And the Torah is not just a religious document, it is a social, political and economic system. Highly divided gender roles and rights are an inherent part of that system.”

There are other religions where the same statement would also hold water. As for customs and traditions, we make exceptions for Community Justice in Aboriginal communities, i’m not saying that means we should or have to make exceptions for Muslim traditions like that, but just pointing out we already do this for one section of society.

Will post more later.

Obiter_Dictum10:19 am 05 Jun 16

Thank you, Mordd, for your reply.

I do want to make one further comments on this though, because this is the comment I most typically get back:

gooterz said :

dungfungus said :

I will not deny that there are some muslim males who hold abhorrent attitudes towards women. But I would contend that the numbers are often exaggerated for media effect and propoganda. Do you know or have ever met any muslim people in your own life, like the ones who have successfully transitioned to living in Australia? I would suggest you ask a muslim this exact question and they will explain that while an extreme minority are like that, most muslims do not believe such things.

In answer: yes, I have met many muslims in my line of work. Many. I do not really want to say much more about that, except that experiences are mixed and cultural differences can be vast.

You’re correct that I do not have any close muslim friends. Truth be told, I don’t think I really have any seriously practising Christian friends, either, or Buddhist for that matter. Mine is a secular circle. But I know a number of muslim people on a friendly enough basis – parents of children’s friends, associates at work etc. Individually, they are more more or less likeable or reliable or affable than anyone else. I have no problem with any individual. It is views on mass.

Most muslims don’t support ISIS, that is a given. Most don’t support slavery or anything of the other rubbish like that. And sure, the the risk of terrorist nutters exists everywhere and I doubt muslim immigration would seriously increases the risk of a terrorist attack (although I do think that many people with that kind of psychosis are now attracted to extreme Islam as an outlet for those urges, and the leaders of ISIS know that and use it).

But it is wrong to say that, en mass, the views of Muslims on women are no different to the views of Christianity. Have you, Mordd, studied Islam, the Koran, the hadiths in any depth? I have, and I did well before 9/11 made Islam such a hot topic. Islam is not a ‘take it or leave it’ religion like (most forms of ) Christianity or Buddhism. To most Muslims, the Koran is the word of God, dictated to Muhammed, as his prophet and messsenger. And the Koran is not just a religious document, it s a social, political and economic system. Highly divided gender roles and rights are an inherent part of that system. Look at the altrenative Cairo declaration on human rights to see how fundamental these differences are. Look also at thes poll after poll of muslims, including muslims who has spent significant time in the West (for example, look here: http://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-women-in-society/ but there are plenty of others).

Again, these differences are not a problem when society is diverse, but they will become a problem is society becomes heavily Islam. Let’s take something as innocuous as inheritance laws. We have gender-neutral intestacy laws, but let us say the muslim population reaches, say 20%. In that scenario, there is going to be serious pressure on our democractic systems to recognise some exceptions to equality for, for example, for Islamic inheritance. And then what about Islam divorce laws? Child custody? Should one group of women be treated as less equal than another in the name of diversity? And if we accept one group as unequal, what ramafications does that have for the rest of us?

dungfungus said :

First off, im not going to include the quote, otherwise the threaded replies will get really long really fast. Anyone wanting to read it can scroll up.

Thank you for your answer. My questions (well except for the 4th) were all deadly serious, and designed to make ppl actually think hard about their values and beliefs to answer honestly, and I am impressed to see that you actually did that, and I really appreciate the honesty in your answers.

First up, I would like to point out that we have lived through mass migrations before, notably post-WW1 and post-WW2 as the most glaring examples. These were indeed difficult times and required a lot of adjustment on the part of the immigrants and the citizens already in the countries that took them in. America is a great example of how mass immigration changes the landscape as shown there in the decades following their post-WW2 immigration. This doesn’t have to be a bad thing though. I’m not pretending it wouldn’t be a culture shock on both sides, it would, but I do think it is possible to manage and mitigate in a way that benefits everyone overall, and I think history shows us this is possible.

I will not deny that there are some muslim males who hold abhorrent attitudes towards women. But I would contend that the numbers are often exaggerated for media effect and propoganda. Do you know or have ever met any muslim people in your own life, like the ones who have successfully transitioned to living in Australia? I would suggest you ask a muslim this exact question and they will explain that while an extreme minority are like that, most muslims do not believe such things. Christians don’t believe everything in the bible, they use common sense, we do not literally cut off ppl’s hands for stealing, even though the bible says we should. Same goes with the koran, although there is patriarchal elements of the Koran, as there are in the Bible, a lot of muslims don’t necessarily subscribe to these beliefs either, they have as much common sense and human decency as you or I. As for the ones that do hold those views, they currently live somewhere where the law allows them to treat women like that. Australia would not allow that. Break the law here and the punishment would be swift indeed. I’m not saying it couldn’t happen but our laws and justice system are a deterrent to this already, same reason a lot of ppl in our society might entertain sick thoughts in their minds but very few carry through with these thoughts and put them into action, because of the legal consequences of doing so. I don’t want to dismiss outright the possibility that mass immigration would end up with some undesirables, but these would be few and the moment they broke the law would be punished and locked away.

As for your perspective as a women and as a mother, I am male and have no kids, so your perspective is indeed quite different to mine and that means we can learn from each other. I do not for a second want to discount your legitimate fears as a women and for your children over the possibilities that muslim immigration might entail for you, you are perfectly entitled to your feelings and no-one can tell you they are not legitimate, and I wouldn’t attempt to for a second. You are to be commended though for expressing this in a way that is not primarily racist but is an expression of your genuine feelings without wanting to judge others on race. I would like to answer your last question on this in greater detail, but I want to think over it a bit more first and read your comment again tomorrow before attempting that, so i’ll leave this comment here for the moment. Thanks again for your reply.

Obiter_Dictum10:22 pm 03 Jun 16

1. If every refugee agreed to convert to Christianity on entry to the country, would it then be ok?

No. That would not solve the problem. Although conversions probably would secure the genuine refugee status of many of the converters, given that under many interpretations of Islamic Law, the punishment for apostasy is death, and several Muslim countries (including Sudan, Iran, Pakistan, Yemen and Afghanistan) still have it listed as a capital crime…

To address some of the other comments on this threat, the focus is on Islam because the mass movement of migrants across countries, at present, is largely a movement of young muslim men from the Middle East, and it is the impact of their beliefs that is causing some people, including me, such concern. If I am being honest, I don’t want to live in a nation where there is a strong influence from radical protestant Evangelicals from Arkansas either, but at the moment it is not likely to happen.

More to the point, though, I think any large and sudden arrival of a large number of people of one culture and faith, particularly one that is very different to that of the prevailing majority, is going to cause trouble. A mass migration of a diverse range of peoples, over a lengthy period of time, as Australia has traditionally done, does not have the same issues.

Still, if I am honest (and this is the internet, so I can), I also think the consequences of a mass migration of muslim men is particularly threatening to me, as a women and as the mother of daughters. It is far more threatening than a mass migration of people from Europe, or North or South East Asia, would be. I do not want to live in a nation where there is a strong influence from conservative Islam. I fear the consequences for myself and my daughters, both in terms of rights, but also in terms of freedoms and mere convenience.

We are constantly being told that, as a multicultural society, we must give and take. But why is it women who are being asked to do the disproportionate percentage of the ‘giving’ here? I look in horror at the reaction of the Mayor of Cologne, Henriette Reker – a left wing feminist – in the wake of the mass sexual assaults in her city. She said that the solution would be to publish guidelines for girls to follow to protect themselves when they go out. Not rules that lecherous men should follow upon pain of being deported, but rules that girls should follow so that they don’t temp such men into losing control (after all, these men have been raised to believe that men are naturally lustful, and that it is the duty of women to mitigate that lust by being invisible…blah blah blah rubbish). I look at what happened with the gang rape ring in Rotterham in the UK, where young girls were allowed to be abused for years because the authorities were scared of looking racist. I look at the stories of immigrants to Germany are refusing to accept medical care or food from female workers- why are we appeasing these misogynists rather than telling them to accept what is offered or go ahead and starve? I shudder in horror that there are now calls from some quarters for ‘moderate’ forms of female genital mutilation (as if condemning it is some kind of cultural imperialism…),and that womens magazines are increasingly touting ‘glamorous’ hijabs, as if they as a fashion accessory rather than a symbol of a religion that believes women are not entitled to the same freedoms and rights as men. On a more personal level, I have even had managers at a workplace suggest that certain types of work should be assigned to a man because it involves dealing with muslims and they won’t “deal with a woman”. Well, tough luck for them, I’d like to have said. But I couldn’t, because that would breach the equity and diversity policy.

Am I the only one who thinks this is insane?

Believe me, I am not happy about thinking this way about a particular religion. Mordd, your questions and hypothetical made me deeply uncomfortable. I have tried to think through all kinds of alternatives – how can we be open and generous as a society, help people, and still retain our freedoms? I cannot come up with an answer.

I suspect that some of the push for a Human Rights Act by the left may be founded on a belief that if we can legislate for an equal and tolerant society – if we inscribe it in stone – then we can invite in the masses from other countries, without fear that our liberal rights will be overridden by a new majority that doesn’t believe in them. But what can you do when the largest of those immigrant groups doesn’t necessarily believe in the rule or law, such that they would even respect a bill of rights? What is they don’t believe in equality? Heck, what if they don’t even believe in democracy?

2. If there was a muslim holocaust, would it be ok then for mass migration of muslims to result?

This question really did make me think. There is no easy answer.

There is a very serious Muslim civil war going on at the moment (although arguably its been going on since 662). Lots of muslims are getting killed (by other muslims). But that does not mean that the answer is letting huge numbers of young men from all muslim areas (whether affected by war or not) move en masse across several dozen other countries to a place of their choice. Which, ironically enough, tends to be a lace to which they have no linguistic, cultural or religious ties.

A muslim holocaust would entitle the victims to free to safety in refugee camps, where they could be processed in an orderly manner and resettled temporarily, pending the resolution of the conflict. The priority should be to place them in geographically close countries, other muslim countries, or in countries that are actually in need of new citizens. The long term goal should be to help them rebuild their country.

And yes, that may mean *lots* of money and assistance from the rest of the world. That is where we are failing at present.

Of course, we could also train them and/or help them to get their country back in the meantime, but the current crop don’t seem to want either of those things..

3. If we let in all the non-muslims, but keep the muslims out, is that ok?

No. And nor would I advocate banning Muslims or some ridiculous Trump style excess like that. The current immigration policy of diversity is fine. My concern is with a mass migration of one particular group like that which is happening in Europe. A mass migration that would find its way here if we simply opened the borders.

4. What if only Greens voters had to house them, is it ok to let them in then?

No. That hardly solves the problem …

Seriously, I don’t know if you are being facetious, but the only sensible spin I can put on this question is that you think the *real* concern most people have is an economic one, and the Greens could relieve that by offering to meet all the expenses of recent migrants.

Let me be clear that my concern isn’t financial – I do not think migrants pose any greater drain on society than anyone else, I wouldn’t mind much if they did, and in any case I don’t mind paying to improve the lives of everyone in the world. I think we should increase foreign aid (albeit in a way that doesn’t just prop up corrupt regimes). I think we should poor money and resources into rebuilding war ravaged countries. My concern has nothing to do with finance, and everything to do with a genuine concern that mass immigration from conservative, religious and totalitarian countries is going to have a very detrimental effect on my hard won (by previous generations) freedoms as a woman, and as a participant in a secular liberal democracy.

Let me finish by saying this:

I would very much like to hear some of the proponents of mass migration address my fears and give me an answer – rather than just accuse me of racism, prejudice or “Islamophobia”. If we do have a massive influx of refugees from muslim majority nations, and a big change in our population composition as a result, how are we going to reconcile the positions of these new immigrants on apostasy, democracy, the rule of law, gender interactions and family relationships with the current law and culture in Australia? Do you think women and homosexuality might need to change their behaviors to accommodate a more diverse range of views? Do you think we should have to? Do you think diversity is always good, even if that diversity results in less freedom for some existing citizens?

I am not comfortable feeling as I do at present. I would LOVE to take the Angela Merkel approach and not be worried. So, please, reassure me – why do you think my fears about the ramifications of all of this are unfounded?

gazket said :

chewy14 said :

Let’s take these questions relating to Muslims and put a different spin on it and see if our attitudes might change.
Say we were talking about bikie gangs, an organisation comprised of people who have a common belief. The gang members are like normal folks, but the reputation of gangs in general has been ruined by the extremist nature of some members. Laws have been made that prohibit gang members to socialize with other gang members in public, enter licensed premises wearing gang “colours” and are continually being targeted by police in raids. Motorcyclists cannot even ride together in a group for fear of being prosecuted under these laws. If this kind of attention were to be focused on Muslims, we’d have a riot on our hands, but thanks to religious tolerance we have to allow them to wear their “colours” anywhere, group together anywhere and enjoy the freedoms every other Australian has. They can even walk into a bank, football game, government agency or service station with their face covered up, whilst motorcyclists and KKK members have to remove their head coverings for identification purposes. One rule for one group, another for everyone else. Both groups have a bad reputation because of some members causing problems, both have links to violence and terror, both groups funnel money to their leaders in order to further the groups’ cause. How is it fair that one is persecuted by our legal system whilst the other is allowed to continue to operate?

Not the same thing. You imply that all Muslims wear the Burqa. I think you will find it is only worn by particular groups, most likely those that were able to flee the oppression of the Taliban. In fact, its global use is actually in decline.
If people have experienced an environment overseas where they faced execution for not abiding by particular practice, you would understand the psychological effects that would have on their ability to change.

Im not sure if this discussion is adding to any type of constructive debate. Its more or less become a place for people to air their prejudiced laundry.

Hear hear

gazket said :

chewy14 said :

Let’s take these questions relating to Muslims and put a different spin on it and see if our attitudes might change.
Say we were talking about bikie gangs, an organisation comprised of people who have a common belief. The gang members are like normal folks, but the reputation of gangs in general has been ruined by the extremist nature of some members. Laws have been made that prohibit gang members to socialize with other gang members in public, enter licensed premises wearing gang “colours” and are continually being targeted by police in raids. Motorcyclists cannot even ride together in a group for fear of being prosecuted under these laws. If this kind of attention were to be focused on Muslims, we’d have a riot on our hands, but thanks to religious tolerance we have to allow them to wear their “colours” anywhere, group together anywhere and enjoy the freedoms every other Australian has. They can even walk into a bank, football game, government agency or service station with their face covered up, whilst motorcyclists and KKK members have to remove their head coverings for identification purposes. One rule for one group, another for everyone else. Both groups have a bad reputation because of some members causing problems, both have links to violence and terror, both groups funnel money to their leaders in order to further the groups’ cause. How is it fair that one is persecuted by our legal system whilst the other is allowed to continue to operate?

Not the same thing. You imply that all Muslims wear the Burqa. I think you will find it is only worn by particular groups, most likely those that were able to flee the oppression of the Taliban. In fact, its global use is actually in decline.
If people have experienced an environment overseas where they faced execution for not abiding by particular practice, you would understand the psychological effects that would have on their ability to change.

Im not sure if this discussion is adding to any type of constructive debate. Its more or less become a place for people to air their prejudiced laundry.

Like the title of the OP.

wildturkeycanoe4:49 pm 03 Jun 16

gazket said :

Im not sure if this discussion is adding to any type of constructive debate. Its more or less become a place for people to air their prejudiced laundry.

I’d say prejudice is well and truly at the root of this controversy. Most all these illegal immigrants are from the Middle East and of cultures that are embroiled in conflict with the “West” and each other.

Let us say for example the boatloads of immigrants were from Iceland, as a random sample of people, and arriving because they were being persecuted for being Jedi Knights and their finances had been lost in banking collapses. With no links to any known organizations that conspire against democracy, terror or anything unwanted by our authorities, would there be a lengthy protocol and containment period for these imports? Even if they had their papers confiscated along the way, their ethnic origins would certainly support a favorable outcome on our shores. Would not a greater majority of the public rise up to the occasion and offer to help them in their time of need? With no history of violence in their land of origin, no remote connections to criminal or terror cells and a genuine need of assistance, our government would surely give them a good home in a timely fashion.

All you would have to do with any of these people is put their religion down as Islam, change their point of origin to the Middle East or Africa, put them into the category of single male aged sixteen to thirty-six and alarm bells would ring in the department of foreign affairs. Now I know that there are many Kiwis and Brits in detention also, but they are more likely to have broken their visa rights than be seeking refugee status.
It is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of illegal “refugees” are coming here from Middle East countries and the stigma of what is happening over there must be affecting our prejudices. The violence emanating from the region, spreading like wildfire through Europe all in the name of Allah, has to hurt the endeavors of those genuinely fleeing for their lives. But why do they insist on getting all the way to our shores if they have managed to escape the country of their oppressors? If destroying paperwork is an attempt to claim a new identity, could they not try the same thing on other lands? Could not the funds with which they paid for a ticket on a leaky boat have been put to better use elsewhere. I mean, those tickets are supposedly worth thousands of dollars, which in my mind would give you quite a good lifestyle in a Southeast Asian country. Even Indonesia could provide a lucrative life on $10k.
Maybe I don’t know anything about it, I mean all this information comes from the internet, from media outlets, from the government’s spin doctors. Who really knows what the truth is when our own politicians won’t say a word about it except to say “We have turned back the boats”, over and over again.
Unfortunately whenever I hear about illegal immigrants, the first thoughts that come to mind are “Muslim”, “Middle East” and “terrorist”. Is it my fault that this is my impression of refugees? Has the media lied about the spread of it throughout Europe or is there truth in every attack, every rape, every act committed against innocent lives in the name of Islam? Whatever the truth is, I’m sure it isn’t the same as what happened in the fifties and sixties, times have changed.

chewy14 said :

Let’s take these questions relating to Muslims and put a different spin on it and see if our attitudes might change.
Say we were talking about bikie gangs, an organisation comprised of people who have a common belief. The gang members are like normal folks, but the reputation of gangs in general has been ruined by the extremist nature of some members. Laws have been made that prohibit gang members to socialize with other gang members in public, enter licensed premises wearing gang “colours” and are continually being targeted by police in raids. Motorcyclists cannot even ride together in a group for fear of being prosecuted under these laws. If this kind of attention were to be focused on Muslims, we’d have a riot on our hands, but thanks to religious tolerance we have to allow them to wear their “colours” anywhere, group together anywhere and enjoy the freedoms every other Australian has. They can even walk into a bank, football game, government agency or service station with their face covered up, whilst motorcyclists and KKK members have to remove their head coverings for identification purposes. One rule for one group, another for everyone else. Both groups have a bad reputation because of some members causing problems, both have links to violence and terror, both groups funnel money to their leaders in order to further the groups’ cause. How is it fair that one is persecuted by our legal system whilst the other is allowed to continue to operate?

Not the same thing. You imply that all Muslims wear the Burqa. I think you will find it is only worn by particular groups, most likely those that were able to flee the oppression of the Taliban. In fact, its global use is actually in decline.
If people have experienced an environment overseas where they faced execution for not abiding by particular practice, you would understand the psychological effects that would have on their ability to change.

Im not sure if this discussion is adding to any type of constructive debate. Its more or less become a place for people to air their prejudiced laundry.

John Hargreaves said :

Mysteryman said :

They are detained for ‘processing’ and ‘investigation of their claim for asylum’ not for a criminal offence.

So again I ask…if they are breaking the law why has not a single asylum seeker been charged for this. Not one. Ever.

We’re not talking about criminal offences as defined by the Crimes Act, we’re talking about breaches of the Migration Act.

The penalties for such breaches include fines or deportation. Deportation is usually the way they are dealt with. People who overstay their visas are not generally charged with anything – they are locked up at Villawood and then deported as soon as possible. Same with illegal entrants.

If they hadn’t broken the law, there would be no justifiable reason to lock them up.

What?
Conspiring with people smugglers (some of whom are now in Australian gaols) to enter Australia illegally isn’t a criminal offence?

wildturkeycanoe7:16 am 03 Jun 16

dungfungus said :

creative_canberran said :

dungfungus said :

Ok then I am curious, answer me these please:

1. If every refugee agreed to convert to Christianity on entry to the country, would it then be ok?

2. If there was a muslim holocaust, would it be ok then for mass migration of muslims to result?

3. If we let in all the non-muslims, but keep the muslims out, is that ok?

4. What if only Greens voters had to house them, is it ok to let them in then?

Just curious after reading all the comments here, all are completely serious questions.

Why do people have to have a religion? I understood Australia was secular.

I would agree with you, but a LOT of focus in these comments have been on Islam and how “different” it is to the rest of the worlds way of life, thus 2 of my questions relating directly to muslims.

Let’s take these questions relating to Muslims and put a different spin on it and see if our attitudes might change.
Say we were talking about bikie gangs, an organisation comprised of people who have a common belief. The gang members are like normal folks, but the reputation of gangs in general has been ruined by the extremist nature of some members. Laws have been made that prohibit gang members to socialize with other gang members in public, enter licensed premises wearing gang “colours” and are continually being targeted by police in raids. Motorcyclists cannot even ride together in a group for fear of being prosecuted under these laws. If this kind of attention were to be focused on Muslims, we’d have a riot on our hands, but thanks to religious tolerance we have to allow them to wear their “colours” anywhere, group together anywhere and enjoy the freedoms every other Australian has. They can even walk into a bank, football game, government agency or service station with their face covered up, whilst motorcyclists and KKK members have to remove their head coverings for identification purposes. One rule for one group, another for everyone else. Both groups have a bad reputation because of some members causing problems, both have links to violence and terror, both groups funnel money to their leaders in order to further the groups’ cause. How is it fair that one is persecuted by our legal system whilst the other is allowed to continue to operate?

Maya123 said :

You selectively pick your own bits. It is NOT illegal to seek asylum. It is NOT illegal to arrive by boat AND seek succour. You should troll the UNHCR and see what feeling people think.

And… while I’m at it…. the cost of stopping the boats and housing the poor folk on the Islands, is obscene. You forget that once here they will get jobs, even if it is cleaning toilets, and I’ll bet you haven’t done that like I have, they pay tax. Unlike the Australian born mega rich.

Have we had any acknowledgment from John Hargreaves that he was in error yet?
Any indication that he has reda the UN Convention on Refugees yet?|
http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

Has he done any research on how – now that the boatloads of illegal immigrants have been stopped – the costs of dealing with illegal immigration have fallen dramatically?
The obscene costs were enitely the result of the same kind of muddled thinking from the ALP that gave the green light to the people smugglers and their law-breaking customers in 2007.

Mysteryman said :

They are detained for ‘processing’ and ‘investigation of their claim for asylum’ not for a criminal offence.

So again I ask…if they are breaking the law why has not a single asylum seeker been charged for this. Not one. Ever.

We’re not talking about criminal offences as defined by the Crimes Act, we’re talking about breaches of the Migration Act.

The penalties for such breaches include fines or deportation. Deportation is usually the way they are dealt with. People who overstay their visas are not generally charged with anything – they are locked up at Villawood and then deported as soon as possible. Same with illegal entrants.

If they hadn’t broken the law, there would be no justifiable reason to lock them up.

creative_canberran said :

dungfungus said :

Ok then I am curious, answer me these please:

1. If every refugee agreed to convert to Christianity on entry to the country, would it then be ok?

2. If there was a muslim holocaust, would it be ok then for mass migration of muslims to result?

3. If we let in all the non-muslims, but keep the muslims out, is that ok?

4. What if only Greens voters had to house them, is it ok to let them in then?

Just curious after reading all the comments here, all are completely serious questions.

Why do people have to have a religion? I understood Australia was secular.

I would agree with you, but a LOT of focus in these comments have been on Islam and how “different” it is to the rest of the worlds way of life, thus 2 of my questions relating directly to muslims.

The sad thing is people’s inability to differentiate between evil and the victims who suffer from it.

The Jews who did manage to flee to Australia (most were turned away) were then interned for the duration of WWII as enemy aliens.

dungfungus said :

Ok then I am curious, answer me these please:

1. If every refugee agreed to convert to Christianity on entry to the country, would it then be ok?

2. If there was a muslim holocaust, would it be ok then for mass migration of muslims to result?

3. If we let in all the non-muslims, but keep the muslims out, is that ok?

4. What if only Greens voters had to house them, is it ok to let them in then?

Just curious after reading all the comments here, all are completely serious questions.

Why do people have to have a religion? I understood Australia was secular.

dungfungus said :

Ok then I am curious, answer me these please:

1. If every refugee agreed to convert to Christianity on entry to the country, would it then be ok?

2. If there was a muslim holocaust, would it be ok then for mass migration of muslims to result?

3. If we let in all the non-muslims, but keep the muslims out, is that ok?

4. What if only Greens voters had to house them, is it ok to let them in then?

Just curious after reading all the comments here, all are completely serious questions.

1. No, I dont think many people think this is predominantly about religion, it’s only one factor in the difficulty resettling people.

2. Where exactly would this holocaust occur?

3. No, see 1.

4.No, but if they wanted to set up and run a fund that privately supplied the resources needed to fully resettle more refugees then I don’t know why that couldn’t be accommodated.

Ok then I am curious, answer me these please:

1. If every refugee agreed to convert to Christianity on entry to the country, would it then be ok?

2. If there was a muslim holocaust, would it be ok then for mass migration of muslims to result?

3. If we let in all the non-muslims, but keep the muslims out, is that ok?

4. What if only Greens voters had to house them, is it ok to let them in then?

Just curious after reading all the comments here, all are completely serious questions.

devils_advocate said :

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

– Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

OK, but should we tolerate people who quietly pray outside abortion clinics, or is that kind of activity beyond the limits of our tolerance?

Maya’s confusion (above) is understandable – the lefties are utterly intolerant of pro-life demonstrators, but they seem completely incapable of showing any kind of intolerance for a politico-religious philosophy (islam) which is entirely incompatible with our pluralistic and democratic egalitarian values.
They whinge incessantly about past events involving white people and colonialism, and yet are completely silent on modern-day colonial genocides such as the one currently occurring in West Papua, or the one that was occurring in East Timor until recently.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

– Karl Popper, The Open Society and Its Enemies

Charlotte Harper said :

Spiral said :

I’m not sure how many ‘rights’ have been lost (I am not even sure what a ‘right’ is these days), but mass muslim immigration, particularly mass immigration of young men, will inevitably change the countries they arrive in. And for women, especially, those changes are unlikely to be positive.

Islam has a fundamentally different view of gender relations than any other modern religion(*). To quote the Economist: “A 2013 Pew poll of Muslims around the world makes sobering reading. More than 90% of Tunisians and Moroccans believe that a wife should always obey her husband. Only 14% of Iraqi Muslims and 22% of Jordanians think a woman should be allowed to initiate a divorce” (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21688397-absorb-newcomers-peacefully-europe-must-insist-they-respect-values-such-tolerance-and).

For what it is worth, Jordan and Tunisia are ‘liberal’ muslim countries.

In modern day Britain, and 39% of muslims still opening admit to agreeing that “wives should always obey their husbands (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law). That’s compared to 5% for everyone else.

The vast majority of world’s worst countries for women are muslim (http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/).

The attitude to homosexuality is just as extreme, and it doesn’t even change after ‘exposure’ to different practices is modern, liberal countries. More than half British muslims still think homosexuality should be illegal.

None of this matters when muslims are a small part of the population. The majority will likely get on with their lives and integrate to some degree, if only because they need to. The minority who want nothing to do with the kaffir can live in enclaves, treat their wives and daughters as cattle, and listen to preachers going on about ‘uncovered meat’ and none of it will really affect mainstream society (other than the convenience of being able to get good hummus).

But if we have the kind of mass immigration advocated by the Greens (‘come one, come all, come now’) then things will change very dramatically, very quickly.

And that is where the problems arise – not individuals, but masses. Very few people care about immigration when the numbers are either (a) small or (b) diverse. But when you get a mass movement of one group into another, that is when social disruption occurs. That is what is happening in Europe right now. And it has nothing to do with genetic race and everything to do with a sudden change in values, culture and lifestyle.

Very few Westerners these days would care that their neighbor might be brown – but they do care if their neighbor thinks women shouldn’t leave the house without a veil, or that their evidence in court is worth half that of a man’s.

Mass immigration must change things. Does anyone really think that, should the muslim population reach, say, 20%, they are not going to start to influence the political climate in these countries? And does anyone seriously think that influence will be positive for women? Or for gay people? Or atheists?

Islam is a religion, not a race. A religious that’s views on women and gays, on jews, and also of the role of religion and the state, I find to be offensive. I can the criticise similar, far less extreme views held by certain elements of the Christian Church. But if I say such things about Islam, I am labeled a racist.

It seems that these days, being tolerant of the intolerance of an unreformed, medieval religion has become the touchstone of being a true, compassionate liberal.

It’s so bizarre it’s Kafkaesque.

+1
As a female I never understand females who can’t see this. They lack the ability to see how society could change with a mass immigration of people (mainly young men) with different values.

I regularly read the Canberra Times and watch ABC TV but I have never read/seen anything that reflects what as outlined in #61. It baffles me also why we are not getting the facts more readily. People need to get up to speed on this issue before it becomes a problem like it is in other parts of the world.
Forget “climate change”, this is a real problem. It is no coincidence that the UN is running the agenda on climate change. The UN is dominated by representatives from the countries that are either now Islamic or soon will be. Climate change is simply a smoke screen.
The current series “Blood and Gold” on SBS TV defines the early history of Spain and explains the geopolitics of what is happening right now. In fact ISIS is mentioned as a contemporary parallel to events that happened 1000 years ago.

canussie said :

dungfungus said :

It doesn’t matter whether you choose to believe it or not, the simple fact remains that the Govt has never prosecuted anyone for arriving without papers and then claiming asylum, so they understand it.

That is yet another fallacious argument.
The response to breaches of the Immigration Act is not generally “prosecution”, it is arrest, detention, and deportation.

In the case of the fakefugees arriving illegally by boat who throw away their ID and make up stories in order to misuse asylum law, the deportation bit gets massively delayed.
The solution for this is quite simple: asylum applications should *only* be entertained in relation to the country of last departure. In other words, if you’ve left Indonesia to enter Australia, then you have to base your asylum claim around persecution in Indonesia. Otherwise, no taxpayer-funded lawyers, no recourse to asylum law, just detention and deportation.
We will need legislation to effect this – we need to clarify the applicability of the UN Convention on domestic law, because the fakefugee lawyers have twisted it beyond recognition.

Holden Caulfield said :

Whatever happened to give us your huddled masses, your poor, your downtrodden, etc….

*I* don’t want them, and nor do the majority of Australians, especially when they are cheats.
We already resettle more refugees per capita than almost all other countries in the world – that is more than enough charity.

This is what happens when we accept people who are skilled with forgery:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/refugee-ghaada-alanzi-facing-deportation-over-luxury-car-scam/news-story/1883e720c2b21b7880f83c5c62c81fcb
One now wonders just how valid her (and her fellow travellers’) asylum claims were.

Spiral said :

I’m not sure how many ‘rights’ have been lost (I am not even sure what a ‘right’ is these days), but mass muslim immigration, particularly mass immigration of young men, will inevitably change the countries they arrive in. And for women, especially, those changes are unlikely to be positive.

Islam has a fundamentally different view of gender relations than any other modern religion(*). To quote the Economist: “A 2013 Pew poll of Muslims around the world makes sobering reading. More than 90% of Tunisians and Moroccans believe that a wife should always obey her husband. Only 14% of Iraqi Muslims and 22% of Jordanians think a woman should be allowed to initiate a divorce” (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21688397-absorb-newcomers-peacefully-europe-must-insist-they-respect-values-such-tolerance-and).

For what it is worth, Jordan and Tunisia are ‘liberal’ muslim countries.

In modern day Britain, and 39% of muslims still opening admit to agreeing that “wives should always obey their husbands (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law). That’s compared to 5% for everyone else.

The vast majority of world’s worst countries for women are muslim (http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/).

The attitude to homosexuality is just as extreme, and it doesn’t even change after ‘exposure’ to different practices is modern, liberal countries. More than half British muslims still think homosexuality should be illegal.

None of this matters when muslims are a small part of the population. The majority will likely get on with their lives and integrate to some degree, if only because they need to. The minority who want nothing to do with the kaffir can live in enclaves, treat their wives and daughters as cattle, and listen to preachers going on about ‘uncovered meat’ and none of it will really affect mainstream society (other than the convenience of being able to get good hummus).

But if we have the kind of mass immigration advocated by the Greens (‘come one, come all, come now’) then things will change very dramatically, very quickly.

And that is where the problems arise – not individuals, but masses. Very few people care about immigration when the numbers are either (a) small or (b) diverse. But when you get a mass movement of one group into another, that is when social disruption occurs. That is what is happening in Europe right now. And it has nothing to do with genetic race and everything to do with a sudden change in values, culture and lifestyle.

Very few Westerners these days would care that their neighbor might be brown – but they do care if their neighbor thinks women shouldn’t leave the house without a veil, or that their evidence in court is worth half that of a man’s.

Mass immigration must change things. Does anyone really think that, should the muslim population reach, say, 20%, they are not going to start to influence the political climate in these countries? And does anyone seriously think that influence will be positive for women? Or for gay people? Or atheists?

Islam is a religion, not a race. A religious that’s views on women and gays, on jews, and also of the role of religion and the state, I find to be offensive. I can the criticise similar, far less extreme views held by certain elements of the Christian Church. But if I say such things about Islam, I am labeled a racist.

It seems that these days, being tolerant of the intolerance of an unreformed, medieval religion has become the touchstone of being a true, compassionate liberal.

It’s so bizarre it’s Kafkaesque.

+1
As a female I never understand females who can’t see this. They lack the ability to see how society could change with a mass immigration of people (mainly young men) with different values.

wildturkeycanoe8:11 am 01 Jun 16

Spiral said :

Islam is a religion, not a race. A religious that’s views on women and gays, on jews, and also of the role of religion and the state, I find to be offensive. I can the criticise similar, far less extreme views held by certain elements of the Christian Church. But if I say such things about Islam, I am labeled a racist.

It seems that these days, being tolerant of the intolerance of an unreformed, medieval religion has become the touchstone of being a true, compassionate liberal.

It’s so bizarre it’s Kafkaesque.

You have said exactly what I feel about the issue. You cannot say things about a culture without being labelled a racist, even when the culture you are talking about is itself dedicated to the eradication of anybody not of that faith, treats women as slaves and believes that it’s religious edicts overrule the laws of the country they inhabit.

Obiter_Dictum7:13 am 01 Jun 16

I’m not sure how many ‘rights’ have been lost (I am not even sure what a ‘right’ is these days), but mass muslim immigration, particularly mass immigration of young men, will inevitably change the countries they arrive in. And for women, especially, those changes are unlikely to be positive.

Islam has a fundamentally different view of gender relations than any other modern religion(*). To quote the Economist: “A 2013 Pew poll of Muslims around the world makes sobering reading. More than 90% of Tunisians and Moroccans believe that a wife should always obey her husband. Only 14% of Iraqi Muslims and 22% of Jordanians think a woman should be allowed to initiate a divorce” (http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21688397-absorb-newcomers-peacefully-europe-must-insist-they-respect-values-such-tolerance-and).

For what it is worth, Jordan and Tunisia are ‘liberal’ muslim countries.

In modern day Britain, and 39% of muslims still opening admit to agreeing that “wives should always obey their husbands (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/apr/11/british-muslims-strong-sense-of-belonging-poll-homosexuality-sharia-law). That’s compared to 5% for everyone else.

The vast majority of world’s worst countries for women are muslim (http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2014/).

The attitude to homosexuality is just as extreme, and it doesn’t even change after ‘exposure’ to different practices is modern, liberal countries. More than half British muslims still think homosexuality should be illegal.

None of this matters when muslims are a small part of the population. The majority will likely get on with their lives and integrate to some degree, if only because they need to. The minority who want nothing to do with the kaffir can live in enclaves, treat their wives and daughters as cattle, and listen to preachers going on about ‘uncovered meat’ and none of it will really affect mainstream society (other than the convenience of being able to get good hummus).

But if we have the kind of mass immigration advocated by the Greens (‘come one, come all, come now’) then things will change very dramatically, very quickly.

And that is where the problems arise – not individuals, but masses. Very few people care about immigration when the numbers are either (a) small or (b) diverse. But when you get a mass movement of one group into another, that is when social disruption occurs. That is what is happening in Europe right now. And it has nothing to do with genetic race and everything to do with a sudden change in values, culture and lifestyle. Very few Westerners these days would care that their neighbor might be brown – but they do care if their neighbor thinks women shouldn’t leave the house without a veil, or that their evidence in court is worth half that of a man’s.

Mass immigration must change things. Does anyone really think that, should the muslim population reach, say, 20%, they are not going to start to influence the political climate in these countries? And does anyone seriously think that influence will be positive for women? Or for gay people? Or atheists?

Islam is a religion, not a race. A religious that’s views on women and gays, on jews, and also of the role of religion and the state, I find to be offensive. I can the criticise similar, far less extreme views held by certain elements of the Christian Church. But if I say such things about Islam, I am labeled a racist.

It seems that these days, being tolerant of the intolerance of an unreformed, medieval religion has become the touchstone of being a true, compassionate liberal.

It’s so bizarre it’s Kafkaesque.

dungfungus said :

It doesn’t matter whether you choose to believe it or not, the simple fact remains that the Govt has never prosecuted anyone for arriving without papers and then claiming asylum, so they understand it.

That is yet another fallacious argument.
The response to breaches of the Immigration Act is not generally “prosecution”, it is arrest, detention, and deportation.

In the case of the fakefugees arriving illegally by boat who throw away their ID and make up stories in order to misuse asylum law, the deportation bit gets massively delayed.
The solution for this is quite simple: asylum applications should *only* be entertained in relation to the country of last departure. In other words, if you’ve left Indonesia to enter Australia, then you have to base your asylum claim around persecution in Indonesia. Otherwise, no taxpayer-funded lawyers, no recourse to asylum law, just detention and deportation.
We will need legislation to effect this – we need to clarify the applicability of the UN Convention on domestic law, because the fakefugee lawyers have twisted it beyond recognition.

Holden Caulfield said :

Whatever happened to give us your huddled masses, your poor, your downtrodden, etc….

*I* don’t want them, and nor do the majority of Australians, especially when they are cheats.
We already resettle more refugees per capita than almost all other countries in the world – that is more than enough charity.

A_Cog said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

madelini said :

JC said :

A_Cog said :

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

Before there was mass Muslim migration to Australia (which is continuing) we used to be able to say why it wouldn’t work in Australia just as it hasn’t in the UK and Europe.
Now to suggest Islam does not fit into western society would be considered “racist.” Islam has nothing to do with nationality. Islam is supposed to be a religion but it is not that alone.
Islam is found in all the races known to man so how is it that someone who feels Islam is a problem to western culture is termed a “racist?”

I’m not quite clear how that is an example of a right that has been removed.

But to answer your specific question, English is an evolving language and the definitions of the word ‘racism’ has been slowly but surely changing from its traditional definition and becoming broader. If enough people use a term to mean something and it falls into common usage with that meaning….then that is what it means! You can’t fight it.

You have some references that the term ‘racist’ is changing its meaning? I have seen no sign of that; only that some people are ignorantly misusing it. They appear to think that people of the Muslim faith only come in darker shades; while they come in all shades from blond to dark. Ignorance; that’s all.

Islam is a religion, NOT a race. 😉

OK, so the racists are actually bigots. And? 🙂

TuggLife said :

dungfungus said :

gazket said :

Reply

Holden Caulfield said :

Sigh, whatever happened to the well off (the 1st world) having an obligation to help the less fortunate (the 3rd world) who often come from such messed up situations because of policies exacerbated by 1st world countries.

Whatever happened to give us your huddled masses, your poor, your downtrodden, etc…. I don’t doubt there are some economic refugees as it is termed coming by boat, but no-one has ever shown real evidence that all or even a majority are “rich” and “fly in” to indonesia then conveniently “lose their papers” only at that point. A lot of evidence shows that many of the people who come by boat have travelled thousands of kilometres by sea and land prior to that point to get there, never had papers to begin with because of situations where they came from, and are genuine refugees in need of our help. And yes goddamit we have an obligation to help those whose lives are genuinely so messed up they will travel halfway around the world any way they can to get away from where they were. I’m not talking about our UN obligations, although we like to criticise other countries for not meeting their UN convention commitments, im talking instead about our obligation as citizens of the world who are quite well off to help those who are a lot less well off. This whole comments thread disgusts me to be honest.

Am I sorry for you then?
No.
The point about the well off helping the less well of is that the more it happens the less well off we become and I don’t hear the less well off saying “thank you”.
BTW, Australia’s debt today became the highest ever recorded.
I think you should stop reading The Guardian and your Green newsletters.

dungfungus said :

gazket said :

Reply

Sigh, whatever happened to the well off (the 1st world) having an obligation to help the less fortunate (the 3rd world) who often come from such messed up situations because of policies exacerbated by 1st world countries.

Whatever happened to give us your huddled masses, your poor, your downtrodden, etc…. I don’t doubt there are some economic refugees as it is termed coming by boat, but no-one has ever shown real evidence that all or even a majority are “rich” and “fly in” to indonesia then conveniently “lose their papers” only at that point. A lot of evidence shows that many of the people who come by boat have travelled thousands of kilometres by sea and land prior to that point to get there, never had papers to begin with because of situations where they came from, and are genuine refugees in need of our help. And yes goddamit we have an obligation to help those whose lives are genuinely so messed up they will travel halfway around the world any way they can to get away from where they were. I’m not talking about our UN obligations, although we like to criticise other countries for not meeting their UN convention commitments, im talking instead about our obligation as citizens of the world who are quite well off to help those who are a lot less well off. This whole comments thread disgusts me to be honest.

gazket said :

Reply

wildturkeycanoe said :

madelini said :

JC said :

A_Cog said :

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

Before there was mass Muslim migration to Australia (which is continuing) we used to be able to say why it wouldn’t work in Australia just as it hasn’t in the UK and Europe.
Now to suggest Islam does not fit into western society would be considered “racist.” Islam has nothing to do with nationality. Islam is supposed to be a religion but it is not that alone.
Islam is found in all the races known to man so how is it that someone who feels Islam is a problem to western culture is termed a “racist?”

I’m not quite clear how that is an example of a right that has been removed.

But to answer your specific question, English is an evolving language and the definitions of the word ‘racism’ has been slowly but surely changing from its traditional definition and becoming broader. If enough people use a term to mean something and it falls into common usage with that meaning….then that is what it means! You can’t fight it.

You have some references that the term ‘racist’ is changing its meaning? I have seen no sign of that; only that some people are ignorantly misusing it. They appear to think that people of the Muslim faith only come in darker shades; while they come in all shades from blond to dark. Ignorance; that’s all.

Islam is a religion, NOT a race. 😉

Mike_Drop said :

Except when you overstay your visa, which is what most of the illegal migrants do.

This is an ALP lie. Over-stayers get caught all the time, it is just not worth ‘our’ ABC, Fairfax, or the Guardian to report it.

JC said :

A_Cog said :

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

Before there was mass Muslim migration to Australia (which is continuing) we used to be able to say why it wouldn’t work in Australia just as it hasn’t in the UK and Europe.
Now to suggest Islam does not fit into western society would be considered “racist.” Islam has nothing to do with nationality. Islam is supposed to be a religion but it is not that alone.
Islam is found in all the races known to man so how is it that someone who feels Islam is a problem to western culture is termed a “racist?”

As Jim Jeffries accurately puts it: “I’m not a racist. I’m a bigot!”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZJ-_OTvsqo

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

The benefits I see in giving asylum to those fleeing persecution, is that it is the right thing to do for someone who is in dire straits.

But we do not give the same treatment to our own citizens who are in dire straits. There are families and individuals in our cities and towns with no job, health issues and trouble finding housing. The government is doing its best to get as many as they can out of the welfare system by making it harder and harder to qualify for benefits. The Medicare budget is being squeezed tighter and tighter so that working poor cannot afford health care and treatment. But immigrants get a roof over their head, food on the table and from many reports, mobile phones, free cigarettes, computer games and so on. Our unemployed and impoverished citizens should be feeling very let down by this.

HenryBG said :

It is the fear of the unknown which breeds xenophobia and it is the false straw-man tactics of those who wish to exploit and create fear that does the, us and the whole nation a disservice.

It isn’t fear of the unknown any more that breeds xenophobia but rather, fear of what we have learned through the media about the type of people trying to get into our society. Just look at what is going on in the countries who accepted these “refugees” across Europe. The poor helpless refugees are forming gangs and fighting with each other, attacking local girls and women and whenever they don’t get their way they turn to violence. It might only be a minority, but they are giving the genuine ones in need a bad reputation.
Some of their religious rules are not compatible with Australian law, but we are forced to accept them into our neighborhoods without any onus on the immigrants to adapt to our way of life. When they form their own little communities, changing them so that walking through some suburbs one feels like being in a totally different country, inevitably more liberated people will feel as though they are losing their freedoms.
I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. They can leave their rules behind and accept ours if they want to live in our country. Were we to immigrate to their country, the same onus would be upon us.

Well said!

madelini said :

JC said :

A_Cog said :

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

Before there was mass Muslim migration to Australia (which is continuing) we used to be able to say why it wouldn’t work in Australia just as it hasn’t in the UK and Europe.
Now to suggest Islam does not fit into western society would be considered “racist.” Islam has nothing to do with nationality. Islam is supposed to be a religion but it is not that alone.
Islam is found in all the races known to man so how is it that someone who feels Islam is a problem to western culture is termed a “racist?”

I’m not quite clear how that is an example of a right that has been removed.

But to answer your specific question, English is an evolving language and the definitions of the word ‘racism’ has been slowly but surely changing from its traditional definition and becoming broader. If enough people use a term to mean something and it falls into common usage with that meaning….then that is what it means! You can’t fight it.

You have some references that the term ‘racist’ is changing its meaning? I have seen no sign of that; only that some people are ignorantly misusing it. They appear to think that people of the Muslim faith only come in darker shades; while they come in all shades from blond to dark. Ignorance; that’s all.

gazket said :

JC said :

chewy14 said :

“It is not illegal to seek asylum.”

More confusion hiding behind a silly slogan.
The Australian Migration Act is the law that governs the crossing of Australia’s borders. If you enter the country without valid travel documents, then you have entered the country illegally.
The UN Convention on Refugees specifically mentions this illegality, so you can’t honestly claim it doesn’t exist.

However, if you declare yourself and your intention to claim asylum at the first opportunity at the border to an Australian official you have not ‘entered the country’ or ‘crossed the border’.

False, as recognised by the UN Convention which quite rightly admits to the illegality that occurs when an individual breaches the laws of a country they enter.

Of additional interest is the UN Convention’s use of the term “second country” in relation to the duty by asylum-seekers to declare themselves at the first available opportunity:
Contrast this duty as stated in the Convention against the reality of the cashed-up asylum-shoppers’ traversal of many countries before engaging with criminal organisations in Indonesia to enter Australia to fraudulently claim asylum.

I agree with all your interpretations of this sometimes emotive (to some) issue.
In relation to your last sentence, it is clearly evident that a conspiracy to defraud the Australian laws and conventions happens once the person destroys his/her papers and pays the smuggler to be transported to Australian waters so why are they never charged with the most serious crime of conspiracy?
Why are we allowing criminally minded people into Australia? We let get away with this so we know what to expect from them.

dungfungus said :

madelini said :

JC said :

A_Cog said :

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

Before there was mass Muslim migration to Australia (which is continuing) we used to be able to say why it wouldn’t work in Australia just as it hasn’t in the UK and Europe.
Now to suggest Islam does not fit into western society would be considered “racist.” Islam has nothing to do with nationality. Islam is supposed to be a religion but it is not that alone.
Islam is found in all the races known to man so how is it that someone who feels Islam is a problem to western culture is termed a “racist?”

I’m not quite clear how that is an example of a right that has been removed.

But to answer your specific question, English is an evolving language and the definitions of the word ‘racism’ has been slowly but surely changing from its traditional definition and becoming broader. If enough people use a term to mean something and it falls into common usage with that meaning….then that is what it means! You can’t fight it.

Ah… right. So the definition will reflect that the word is bandied about by lefties and thrown at anyone who doesn’t share their perspective, in lieu of actually having a logical argument against them?

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

Well, it looks like the definition is still the same. I guess people like John and Rubaiyat are just using it without understanding either the definition, or the people they hurl it at. That does seem more likely.

Best you have a look at the definition of ‘selective perception’ while you’re at it.

JC said :

chewy14 said :

“It is not illegal to seek asylum.”

More confusion hiding behind a silly slogan.
The Australian Migration Act is the law that governs the crossing of Australia’s borders. If you enter the country without valid travel documents, then you have entered the country illegally.
The UN Convention on Refugees specifically mentions this illegality, so you can’t honestly claim it doesn’t exist.

However, if you declare yourself and your intention to claim asylum at the first opportunity at the border to an Australian official you have not ‘entered the country’ or ‘crossed the border’.

False, as recognised by the UN Convention which quite rightly admits to the illegality that occurs when an individual breaches the laws of a country they enter.

Of additional interest is the UN Convention’s use of the term “second country” in relation to the duty by asylum-seekers to declare themselves at the first available opportunity:
Contrast this duty as stated in the Convention against the reality of the cashed-up asylum-shoppers’ traversal of many countries before engaging with criminal organisations in Indonesia to enter Australia to fraudulently claim asylum.

madelini said :

JC said :

A_Cog said :

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

Before there was mass Muslim migration to Australia (which is continuing) we used to be able to say why it wouldn’t work in Australia just as it hasn’t in the UK and Europe.
Now to suggest Islam does not fit into western society would be considered “racist.” Islam has nothing to do with nationality. Islam is supposed to be a religion but it is not that alone.
Islam is found in all the races known to man so how is it that someone who feels Islam is a problem to western culture is termed a “racist?”

I’m not quite clear how that is an example of a right that has been removed.

But to answer your specific question, English is an evolving language and the definitions of the word ‘racism’ has been slowly but surely changing from its traditional definition and becoming broader. If enough people use a term to mean something and it falls into common usage with that meaning….then that is what it means! You can’t fight it.

Ah… right. So the definition will reflect that the word is bandied about by lefties and thrown at anyone who doesn’t share their perspective, in lieu of actually having a logical argument against them?

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

Well, it looks like the definition is still the same. I guess people like John and Rubaiyat are just using it without understanding either the definition, or the people they hurl it at. That does seem more likely.

chewy14 said :

“It is not illegal to seek asylum.”

More confusion hiding behind a silly slogan.
The Australian Migration Act is the law that governs the crossing of Australia’s borders. If you enter the country without valid travel documents, then you have entered the country illegally.
The UN Convention on Refugees specifically mentions this illegality, so you can’t honestly claim it doesn’t exist.

However, if you declare yourself and your intention to claim asylum at the first opportunity at the border to an Australian official you have not ‘entered the country’ or ‘crossed the border’. So you cannot have illegally entered the country…because you have not entered the country.

Asylum seekers are not trying to sneak in…they actively declare themselves and their intentions as soon as they can.

If a boat of asylum seekers were to pull into Bondi and everyone jumped off and ran into the city, that would be illegal. But presenting yourself at a border crossing for the purpose of claiming asylum is not.

JC said :

A_Cog said :

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

Before there was mass Muslim migration to Australia (which is continuing) we used to be able to say why it wouldn’t work in Australia just as it hasn’t in the UK and Europe.
Now to suggest Islam does not fit into western society would be considered “racist.” Islam has nothing to do with nationality. Islam is supposed to be a religion but it is not that alone.
Islam is found in all the races known to man so how is it that someone who feels Islam is a problem to western culture is termed a “racist?”

I’m not quite clear how that is an example of a right that has been removed.

But to answer your specific question, English is an evolving language and the definitions of the word ‘racism’ has been slowly but surely changing from its traditional definition and becoming broader. If enough people use a term to mean something and it falls into common usage with that meaning….then that is what it means! You can’t fight it.

A_Cog said :

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

Before there was mass Muslim migration to Australia (which is continuing) we used to be able to say why it wouldn’t work in Australia just as it hasn’t in the UK and Europe.
Now to suggest Islam does not fit into western society would be considered “racist.” Islam has nothing to do with nationality. Islam is supposed to be a religion but it is not that alone.
Islam is found in all the races known to man so how is it that someone who feels Islam is a problem to western culture is termed a “racist?”

Mike_Drop said :

Except when you overstay your visa, which is what most of the illegal migrants do.

1/3 of visa overstayers are caught and deported within the first 12 months of their over-stay.
A further 1/3 are caught and deported in subsequent years.
The remaining 1/3 avoid deportation for 10 years or longer.

In other words, about 5,000 visa overstayers each year dodge Immigration for 10 years or more, are not claiming welfare, and are presumably hard at work contributing to our economy.

Now contrast this with the “open-borders” effect of the defective Greens-ALP border-control policies where illegal arrivals rapidly climbed to 50,000 per year, with every sign this number would continue to escalate, had we not elected a government that was capable of defending our borders properly and stemmed the flow. And remember that *these* illegals are straight on welfare, with most of them still on welfare 10 years later.

Luckily, the extremist and deluded thinking that results in this “open-borders” is only held by a minority.
Unluckily, this minority’s extreme vocality will result in us having to endure Liberal governments for the foreseeable future.

” If Minister Dutton had been on the wharf, would he have turned my boat back?”

If you were trying to enter the country illegally, it would have been his duty to do so.

I don’t understand why some people seem so confused about this.

“I heard of a statistic when I was more involved than I am now of 60,000 overstayers in about 2008 or so.”

At any one time, there are about 50,000 visa over-stayers in the country.
The government deports about 15,000-20,000 of them every year.
Your criticism is therefore apparently not based on any solid appreciation of the facts.

“It is not illegal to seek asylum.”

More confusion hiding behind a silly slogan.
The Australian Migration Act is the law that governs the crossing of Australia’s borders. If you enter the country without valid travel documents, then you have entered the country illegally.
The UN Convention on Refugees specifically mentions this illegality, so you can’t honestly claim it doesn’t exist.

Mike_Drop said :

Except when you overstay your visa, which is what most of the illegal migrants do.

Someone visiting Australia on a limited period visa is not a “migrant”.
A person with a residency visa is.
Get you facts straight.

Holden Caulfield said :

wildturkeycanoe said :

No_Nose said :

gazket said :

Acton said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally

Why then has none of these thousands of people you claim are breaking the law been charged with this offence? Not one. Ever.

You would think that these ‘Tough on Asylum Seeker’ governments would have charged at least one person by now if they were breaking the law. But they haven’t. Not one. Ever.

What possible explanation could there be for the Government failing to enforce this law?

Could it be because that the Government knows full well that it is not illegal to arrive without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum? Just possibly Mysteryman, the Government knows a bit more than you!

Why do you think they get detained when they attempt to arrive here? There’s a reason why they face detainment, while you and I can travel outside of Australia and return without being detained. It’s because we aren’t arriving unlawfully, and they are.

Circular logic: If I am abusing you there must be a reason for it.

Other countries register the illegal immigrants without the horrendous expense of treating them as criminals, when they are not.

We used to be a noble, decent, caring country known for our ethical and law abiding behaviour, but that has gone in the rush to be the biggest bastards on the block to get the bigot vote.

After having put the refugees through hell for the sake of “being seen to do something”, most are quietly given refugee status. A bloody, expensive and almighty stupid charade.

The harm is compounded. It is enormously degrading for those charged with imprisoning them as well.

And it is so selective! Fly in and you don’t have to face this insane policy.

Try flying in without a visa or any papers that can prove your identity and see how far you get.

As far as you do in a boat.

Wrong! Why do you think these asylum sneakers come by boat to Australia? They generally fly to Indonesia (money no problem) and for some cultural reason they are allowed entry and free transit to the people smugglers’ boats where they misplace their papers.

wildturkeycanoe6:47 am 31 May 16

A_Cog said :

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

I am talking about the rights of the female population of the refugees relocating to Australia. Women are treated as slaves, but receive no protection under Australian law. They get around town covered in their bed sheets, don’t speak to anybody and do nothing all day but clean and cook, all because their religion says the husband is always right. Muslim women are treated as badly here as they are in their country of birth but are too frightened or too conditioned to speak up and get the freedoms that Australian law provides.
Other cultures too, remove rights from not only their women but also children, forbidding inter racial relationships and encouraging segregation from the rest of Australian society. The cliche of hearing a western parent saying to their child “Don’t play with such and such, because they are different to us”, is turned around and now applicable to these foreign cultures. They do not socialize with white Australians, they are not easily forgiving of our lack of knowledge of their varying cultural rules and differences. Instead, they build their own schools for only children of their own native tongue. They teach religious rules that conflict directly with Australian laws. Then if anybody attempts to persuade them to change their ways, to become part of Australia, they cry racism.
Diversity is one thing, it is good to have some variety in life. But deliberately refraining from change in order to build up a society who doesn’t agree with our rules and way of life, is not what our refugee policies are about.

Except when you overstay your visa, which is what most of the illegal migrants do.

wildturkeycanoe said :

No_Nose said :

gazket said :

Acton said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally

Why then has none of these thousands of people you claim are breaking the law been charged with this offence? Not one. Ever.

You would think that these ‘Tough on Asylum Seeker’ governments would have charged at least one person by now if they were breaking the law. But they haven’t. Not one. Ever.

What possible explanation could there be for the Government failing to enforce this law?

Could it be because that the Government knows full well that it is not illegal to arrive without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum? Just possibly Mysteryman, the Government knows a bit more than you!

Why do you think they get detained when they attempt to arrive here? There’s a reason why they face detainment, while you and I can travel outside of Australia and return without being detained. It’s because we aren’t arriving unlawfully, and they are.

Circular logic: If I am abusing you there must be a reason for it.

Other countries register the illegal immigrants without the horrendous expense of treating them as criminals, when they are not.

We used to be a noble, decent, caring country known for our ethical and law abiding behaviour, but that has gone in the rush to be the biggest bastards on the block to get the bigot vote.

After having put the refugees through hell for the sake of “being seen to do something”, most are quietly given refugee status. A bloody, expensive and almighty stupid charade.

The harm is compounded. It is enormously degrading for those charged with imprisoning them as well.

And it is so selective! Fly in and you don’t have to face this insane policy.

Try flying in without a visa or any papers that can prove your identity and see how far you get.

As far as you do in a boat.

wildturkeycanoe said :

Try flying in without a visa or any papers that can prove your identity and see how far you get.

If you claim asylum at the first available opportunity you will have your claim processed and dealt with. The only difference in coming by air is that your claim will likely be dealt with in Australia and you will not be sent off-shore.

Coming to Australia by any means whatsoever for the purposes of claiming asylum is not a criminal offence. If you declare it at the first available opportunity you are not trying to circumvent the immigration laws as you are not trying to enter Australia surreptitiously … you are making a legitimate claim for asylum to the authorities.

You may have your claim rejected and you may be sent packing…but it is not illegal to turn up and make the claim.

A_Cog said :

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

In can’t go to Syria .

No_Nose said :

gazket said :

Acton said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally

Why then has none of these thousands of people you claim are breaking the law been charged with this offence? Not one. Ever.

You would think that these ‘Tough on Asylum Seeker’ governments would have charged at least one person by now if they were breaking the law. But they haven’t. Not one. Ever.

What possible explanation could there be for the Government failing to enforce this law?

Could it be because that the Government knows full well that it is not illegal to arrive without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum? Just possibly Mysteryman, the Government knows a bit more than you!

Why do you think they get detained when they attempt to arrive here? There’s a reason why they face detainment, while you and I can travel outside of Australia and return without being detained. It’s because we aren’t arriving unlawfully, and they are.

Circular logic: If I am abusing you there must be a reason for it.

Other countries register the illegal immigrants without the horrendous expense of treating them as criminals, when they are not.

We used to be a noble, decent, caring country known for our ethical and law abiding behaviour, but that has gone in the rush to be the biggest bastards on the block to get the bigot vote.

After having put the refugees through hell for the sake of “being seen to do something”, most are quietly given refugee status. A bloody, expensive and almighty stupid charade.

The harm is compounded. It is enormously degrading for those charged with imprisoning them as well.

And it is so selective! Fly in and you don’t have to face this insane policy.

Try flying in without a visa or any papers that can prove your identity and see how far you get.

dungfungus said :

I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. .

Can you please give an example of a right that you previously had that has now been removed as a result of immigration?

dungfungus said :

HenryBG said :

The benefits I see in giving asylum to those fleeing persecution, is that it is the right thing to do for someone who is in dire straits.

But we do not give the same treatment to our own citizens who are in dire straits. There are families and individuals in our cities and towns with no job, health issues and trouble finding housing. The government is doing its best to get as many as they can out of the welfare system by making it harder and harder to qualify for benefits. The Medicare budget is being squeezed tighter and tighter so that working poor cannot afford health care and treatment. But immigrants get a roof over their head, food on the table and from many reports, mobile phones, free cigarettes, computer games and so on. Our unemployed and impoverished citizens should be feeling very let down by this.

HenryBG said :

It is the fear of the unknown which breeds xenophobia and it is the false straw-man tactics of those who wish to exploit and create fear that does the, us and the whole nation a disservice.

It isn’t fear of the unknown any more that breeds xenophobia but rather, fear of what we have learned through the media about the type of people trying to get into our society. Just look at what is going on in the countries who accepted these “refugees” across Europe. The poor helpless refugees are forming gangs and fighting with each other, attacking local girls and women and whenever they don’t get their way they turn to violence. It might only be a minority, but they are giving the genuine ones in need a bad reputation.
Some of their religious rules are not compatible with Australian law, but we are forced to accept them into our neighborhoods without any onus on the immigrants to adapt to our way of life. When they form their own little communities, changing them so that walking through some suburbs one feels like being in a totally different country, inevitably more liberated people will feel as though they are losing their freedoms.
I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. They can leave their rules behind and accept ours if they want to live in our country. Were we to immigrate to their country, the same onus would be upon us.

Dear Pauline,

So nice to hear you are coming out of retirement and still with the Same Old Lines. Oldies but Goldies.

Who was it last time? Vietnamese, Japanese, Chinese?

Before that Greeks and Italians?

We missed you and it’s great to have an excuse to give the old Pauline Pantsdown CD another spin.

wildturkeycanoe7:21 pm 30 May 16

HenryBG said :

The benefits I see in giving asylum to those fleeing persecution, is that it is the right thing to do for someone who is in dire straits.

But we do not give the same treatment to our own citizens who are in dire straits. There are families and individuals in our cities and towns with no job, health issues and trouble finding housing. The government is doing its best to get as many as they can out of the welfare system by making it harder and harder to qualify for benefits. The Medicare budget is being squeezed tighter and tighter so that working poor cannot afford health care and treatment. But immigrants get a roof over their head, food on the table and from many reports, mobile phones, free cigarettes, computer games and so on. Our unemployed and impoverished citizens should be feeling very let down by this.

HenryBG said :

It is the fear of the unknown which breeds xenophobia and it is the false straw-man tactics of those who wish to exploit and create fear that does the, us and the whole nation a disservice.

It isn’t fear of the unknown any more that breeds xenophobia but rather, fear of what we have learned through the media about the type of people trying to get into our society. Just look at what is going on in the countries who accepted these “refugees” across Europe. The poor helpless refugees are forming gangs and fighting with each other, attacking local girls and women and whenever they don’t get their way they turn to violence. It might only be a minority, but they are giving the genuine ones in need a bad reputation.
Some of their religious rules are not compatible with Australian law, but we are forced to accept them into our neighborhoods without any onus on the immigrants to adapt to our way of life. When they form their own little communities, changing them so that walking through some suburbs one feels like being in a totally different country, inevitably more liberated people will feel as though they are losing their freedoms.
I can honestly say that I am xenophobic of some people, but the fear is not unfounded. It results from seeing the way these cultures remove the rights that our laws give to its residents. They can leave their rules behind and accept ours if they want to live in our country. Were we to immigrate to their country, the same onus would be upon us.

No_Nose said :

gazket said :

Acton said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally

Why then has none of these thousands of people you claim are breaking the law been charged with this offence? Not one. Ever.

You would think that these ‘Tough on Asylum Seeker’ governments would have charged at least one person by now if they were breaking the law. But they haven’t. Not one. Ever.

What possible explanation could there be for the Government failing to enforce this law?

Could it be because that the Government knows full well that it is not illegal to arrive without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum? Just possibly Mysteryman, the Government knows a bit more than you!

Why do you think they get detained when they attempt to arrive here? There’s a reason why they face detainment, while you and I can travel outside of Australia and return without being detained. It’s because we aren’t arriving unlawfully, and they are.

Circular logic: If I am abusing you there must be a reason for it.

Other countries register the illegal immigrants without the horrendous expense of treating them as criminals, when they are not.

We used to be a noble, decent, caring country known for our ethical and law abiding behaviour, but that has gone in the rush to be the biggest bastards on the block to get the bigot vote.

After having put the refugees through hell for the sake of “being seen to do something”, most are quietly given refugee status. A bloody, expensive and almighty stupid charade.

The harm is compounded. It is enormously degrading for those charged with imprisoning them as well.

And it is so selective! Fly in and you don’t have to face this insane policy.

It’s not circular, actually. But I’m not going to waste my time explaining it for you. You know I’m right.

Mysteryman said :

bj_ACT said :

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

Well it’s unfortunate that reality and evidence disagree with your anecdotes John.

The immigration department’s own reports and data outline the significant cost of resettling refugees and the lower outcomes they have in education and employment for many years after they arrive. Which is completely understandable when you consider the position they’ve often come from.

It’s fine to want to help people but don’t ignore or downplay the large challenges and costs that come with doing so with some idealised notion of a refugee.

…and the significant costs of the current anti-refugee policies?

$55 million for 2 refugees shoved off to Cambodia?

Bigotry is not price sensitive, maximum pain is always worth whatever you throw at it.

The draconian anti-democratic secrecy used to hide what is actually happening is the real price we are having to pay for both major parties fighting over the xenophobic vote.

The currently high costs are mainly to do with the change in policy settings under the previous government that caused the massive increase in arrivals who had/have to be processed. Once those remaining in detention are processed and released/accepted elsewhere costs will drop significantly due to the reduced need for detention facilities and operational costs.

Even still, it’s far cheaper financially than resettling 50k refugees per year as has been suggested by the Greens.

And what this has to do with bigotry or xenophobia I’m not sure, unless you’re suggesting having a controlled border is xenophobic in and of itself.

I would think a workable refugee resettlement program where we help those most in need rather than giving preferential treatment to those with the means and ability to travel through multiple third countries to get here would be something that everyone would support.

Shouldn’t equitable treatment be the starting point of any program?

Except the resettlement and extra refugees were a gross lie. We took just about none, certainly not the “12,000” Abbott used as a fob off to pretend this had anything to do with caring.

The Howard Government was already blowing billions on keeping people out before Labor got in, so nothing to admire there. The “Children Overboard” was the most shocking lie of all to make out that the refugees are inhuman monsters not worth of even common decency.

First you denigrate them, then you deny them, then you disappear them, all on the premise that if they die out of sight, particularly from a gagged press, then that’s all OK. Keep endlessly repeating the same unbelievable but convenient excuses.

The Abbott effort is exactly what shouldn’t happen, he bowed to political pressure over running a well resourced and planned resettlement program.

As for the rest of your comment it’s like you didn’t even read what I wrote, you haven’t even attempted to address my points.

And it’s obvious why, because it’s impossible to maintain your moral signalling if you have to deal with reality. If you have to deal with facts and evidence, how can you keep up the charade that you occupy the high moral ground whilst offering nothing except emotional platitudes and abuse for those who disagree with you.

Zan said :

Masquara said :

JC said :

Mordd said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally.

You are muddying your own waters.

The UN refugee convention does not obsess over the means of transport, unlike for some weird reason the bigots, who are confusing arriving with seeking asylum, the two are separate.

Sorry pal, you’re just trying to convolute the issue to suit you’re own agenda, which seems to be nothing more than throwing about pejorative labels for people you don’t like.

For starters, it’s not the UN convention that determines if it’s illegal. It’s the Migration Act. The UN convention just stipulates that we won’t punish them providing they have met the conditions (which they have not). I said “by boat” because it was easier than typing out the technical term as outlined in the Migration ACT – “unauthorised maritime arrival”. But regardless, arriving without a visa by boat is unlawful.

Get your facts straight.

Dictation Test and Fries with that?

Anyone remember the citizenship test of language which stipulated literacy in Celtic Welsh. It happened here in th4e 1950s!

If you beat them at Welsh, they simply switched to another language they themselves couldn’t speak.

gazket said :

Acton said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally

Why then has none of these thousands of people you claim are breaking the law been charged with this offence? Not one. Ever.

You would think that these ‘Tough on Asylum Seeker’ governments would have charged at least one person by now if they were breaking the law. But they haven’t. Not one. Ever.

What possible explanation could there be for the Government failing to enforce this law?

Could it be because that the Government knows full well that it is not illegal to arrive without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum? Just possibly Mysteryman, the Government knows a bit more than you!

Why do you think they get detained when they attempt to arrive here? There’s a reason why they face detainment, while you and I can travel outside of Australia and return without being detained. It’s because we aren’t arriving unlawfully, and they are.

Circular logic: If I am abusing you there must be a reason for it.

Other countries register the illegal immigrants without the horrendous expense of treating them as criminals, when they are not.

We used to be a noble, decent, caring country known for our ethical and law abiding behaviour, but that has gone in the rush to be the biggest bastards on the block to get the bigot vote.

After having put the refugees through hell for the sake of “being seen to do something”, most are quietly given refugee status. A bloody, expensive and almighty stupid charade.

The harm is compounded. It is enormously degrading for those charged with imprisoning them as well.

And it is so selective! Fly in and you don’t have to face this insane policy.

John Hargreaves6:12 pm 30 May 16

Mysteryman said :

bj_ACT said :

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

Well it’s unfortunate that reality and evidence disagree with your anecdotes John.

The immigration department’s own reports and data outline the significant cost of resettling refugees and the lower outcomes they have in education and employment for many years after they arrive. Which is completely understandable when you consider the position they’ve often come from.

It’s fine to want to help people but don’t ignore or downplay the large challenges and costs that come with doing so with some idealised notion of a refugee.

…and the significant costs of the current anti-refugee policies?

$55 million for 2 refugees shoved off to Cambodia?

Bigotry is not price sensitive, maximum pain is always worth whatever you throw at it.

The draconian anti-democratic secrecy used to hide what is actually happening is the real price we are having to pay for both major parties fighting over the xenophobic vote.

The currently high costs are mainly to do with the change in policy settings under the previous government that caused the massive increase in arrivals who had/have to be processed. Once those remaining in detention are processed and released/accepted elsewhere costs will drop significantly due to the reduced need for detention facilities and operational costs.

Even still, it’s far cheaper financially than resettling 50k refugees per year as has been suggested by the Greens.

And what this has to do with bigotry or xenophobia I’m not sure, unless you’re suggesting having a controlled border is xenophobic in and of itself.

I would think a workable refugee resettlement program where we help those most in need rather than giving preferential treatment to those with the means and ability to travel through multiple third countries to get here would be something that everyone would support.

Shouldn’t equitable treatment be the starting point of any program?

Except the resettlement and extra refugees were a gross lie. We took just about none, certainly not the “12,000” Abbott used as a fob off to pretend this had anything to do with caring.

The Howard Government was already blowing billions on keeping people out before Labor got in, so nothing to admire there. The “Children Overboard” was the most shocking lie of all to make out that the refugees are inhuman monsters not worth of even common decency.

First you denigrate them, then you deny them, then you disappear them, all on the premise that if they die out of sight, particularly from a gagged press, then that’s all OK. Keep endlessly repeating the same unbelievable but convenient excuses.

I wish I had your eloquence. I just get angry when I see the bigotry and the xenophobia. If I could phrase my thoughts as you have here, I would be a happy camper. All power to your pen.

John Hargreaves6:10 pm 30 May 16

Masquara said :

JC said :

Mordd said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally.

You are muddying your own waters.

The UN refugee convention does not obsess over the means of transport, unlike for some weird reason the bigots, who are confusing arriving with seeking asylum, the two are separate.

Sorry pal, you’re just trying to convolute the issue to suit you’re own agenda, which seems to be nothing more than throwing about pejorative labels for people you don’t like.

For starters, it’s not the UN convention that determines if it’s illegal. It’s the Migration Act. The UN convention just stipulates that we won’t punish them providing they have met the conditions (which they have not). I said “by boat” because it was easier than typing out the technical term as outlined in the Migration ACT – “unauthorised maritime arrival”. But regardless, arriving without a visa by boat is unlawful.

Get your facts straight.

Dictation Test and Fries with that?

Anyone remember the citizenship test of language which stipulated literacy in Celtic Welsh. It happened here in th4e 1950s!

John Hargreaves6:09 pm 30 May 16

JC said :

Mordd said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally.

You are muddying your own waters.

The UN refugee convention does not obsess over the means of transport, unlike for some weird reason the bigots, who are confusing arriving with seeking asylum, the two are separate.

Sorry pal, you’re just trying to convolute the issue to suit you’re own agenda, which seems to be nothing more than throwing about pejorative labels for people you don’t like.

For starters, it’s not the UN convention that determines if it’s illegal. It’s the Migration Act. The UN convention just stipulates that we won’t punish them providing they have met the conditions (which they have not). I said “by boat” because it was easier than typing out the technical term as outlined in the Migration ACT – “unauthorised maritime arrival”. But regardless, arriving without a visa by boat is unlawful.

Get your facts straight.

You selectively pick your own bits. It is NOT illegal to seek asylum. It is NOT illegal to arrive by boat AND seek succour. You should troll the UNHCR and see what feeling people think.

And… while I’m at it…. the cost of stopping the boats and housing the poor folk on the Islands, is obscene. You forget that once here they will get jobs, even if it is cleaning toilets, and I’ll bet you haven’t done that like I have, they pay tax. Unlike the Australian born mega rich.

John Hargreaves6:04 pm 30 May 16

Mordd said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally.

You are muddying your own waters.

The UN refugee convention does not obsess over the means of transport, unlike for some weird reason the bigots, who are confusing arriving with seeking asylum, the two are separate.

Considering what else has been written into our Immigration Act should we perhaps be reinstating the infamous Dictation Test to our laws?

Personally I find the lonely figure of Tony Abbott on Manly wharf hilarious. Is this force of habit?

Is he trying to turn back more boat people? Shouldn’t he be representing all £10 Poms by standing at Circular Quay trying to turn back, belatedly, the White Boat People of 1788 that started all the trouble?

Huge! laughed until I hurt

HiddenDragon6:03 pm 30 May 16

Earlier this year, Bob Carr referred to Australia as having “a crude, industrial era, force-fed immigration program” –

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-02-16/bob-carr-says-cut-australia's-immigration-by-at-least-a-third/7174506

and made a number of worthwhile points about the wisdom, or otherwise, of immigration policies, and their impacts, over recent years. If those issues were addressed by either, or both, of the major political parties, they might find that they would be allowed more latitude on refugee/asylum-seeker issues by the Australian public.

John Hargreaves6:02 pm 30 May 16

Rollersk8r said :

HenryBG said :

The benefits I see in giving asylum to those fleeing persecution, is that it is the right thing to do for someone who is in dire straits.

I have criticised Governments of both persuasions for not cracking down on tourist visa overstayers and these can number tens of thousands each year. I heard of a statistic when I was more involved than I am now of 60,000 overstayers in about 2008 or so.

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

I don’t see why compassion should not reign for those on Nauru and Manus Is. We can still have the disincentives for people smuggling (although I don’t support the turn back policy) but surely those on Nauru and Manus w]have stayed there long enough. We know that most of them are genuine and those who aren’t can be shipped home.

We actually benefit in this country by having a genuine polyglot population. Apart from not having British fat laden food everyday and enjoying the multicultural cuisine that we do, thanks to the many cultures we have living alongside us, we actually have a unique insight how other tick.

It is the fear of the unknown which breeds xenophobia and it is the false straw-man tactics of those who wish to exploit and create fear that does the, us and the whole nation a disservice.

In answer to the suggestion that I seek the views of folks in the UK, I have. and they are more xenophobic then ever I could imagine.

But it is the fact that there has not been a policy of distribution of cultures like we see in Canberra. IN other Oz capitals and indeed overseas aplenty, enclaves of cultures have been allowed to spring up, bringing all the ancient and irrational antipathies and enmities and allowing them to fester in those enclaves.

In Canberra, there are no enclaves, no ghettos of cultural differences. People have all cultures and religions living in the their streets and we celebrate that diversity. I’m proud of it and only wish people like Morrison and Dutton would drift our of Manuka and Kingston , up to Belco or Tuggers and see how real multiculturalism works.

It is this understanding which makes the ACT a more compassionate and a less xenophobic city than elsewhere.

John I strongly suspect you are arguing with a fellow Pom, but of a different cut. Like Pauline Hansen one of those who thinks they have special and exclusive rights to this country, not shared by anyone else, including the original inhabitants.

Thank you so much. Whilst you have given me a pasting from time to time, I share this one. Nice to see it.

gazket said :

Acton said :

Why then has none of these thousands of people you claim are breaking the law been charged with this offence? Not one. Ever.

You would think that these ‘Tough on Asylum Seeker’ governments would have charged at least one person by now if they were breaking the law. But they haven’t. Not one. Ever.

What possible explanation could there be for the Government failing to enforce this law?

Could it be because that the Government knows full well that it is not illegal to arrive without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum? Just possibly Mysteryman, the Government knows a bit more than you!

Why do you think they get detained when they attempt to arrive here? There’s a reason why they face detainment, while you and I can travel outside of Australia and return without being detained. It’s because we aren’t arriving unlawfully, and they are.

They are detained for ‘processing’ and ‘investigation of their claim for asylum’ not for a criminal offence.

So again I ask…if they are breaking the law why has not a single asylum seeker been charged for this. Not one. Ever.

bj_ACT said :

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

Well it’s unfortunate that reality and evidence disagree with your anecdotes John.

The immigration department’s own reports and data outline the significant cost of resettling refugees and the lower outcomes they have in education and employment for many years after they arrive. Which is completely understandable when you consider the position they’ve often come from.

It’s fine to want to help people but don’t ignore or downplay the large challenges and costs that come with doing so with some idealised notion of a refugee.

…and the significant costs of the current anti-refugee policies?

$55 million for 2 refugees shoved off to Cambodia?

Bigotry is not price sensitive, maximum pain is always worth whatever you throw at it.

The draconian anti-democratic secrecy used to hide what is actually happening is the real price we are having to pay for both major parties fighting over the xenophobic vote.

The currently high costs are mainly to do with the change in policy settings under the previous government that caused the massive increase in arrivals who had/have to be processed. Once those remaining in detention are processed and released/accepted elsewhere costs will drop significantly due to the reduced need for detention facilities and operational costs.

Even still, it’s far cheaper financially than resettling 50k refugees per year as has been suggested by the Greens.

And what this has to do with bigotry or xenophobia I’m not sure, unless you’re suggesting having a controlled border is xenophobic in and of itself.

I would think a workable refugee resettlement program where we help those most in need rather than giving preferential treatment to those with the means and ability to travel through multiple third countries to get here would be something that everyone would support.

Shouldn’t equitable treatment be the starting point of any program?

Except the resettlement and extra refugees were a gross lie. We took just about none, certainly not the “12,000” Abbott used as a fob off to pretend this had anything to do with caring.

The Howard Government was already blowing billions on keeping people out before Labor got in, so nothing to admire there. The “Children Overboard” was the most shocking lie of all to make out that the refugees are inhuman monsters not worth of even common decency.

First you denigrate them, then you deny them, then you disappear them, all on the premise that if they die out of sight, particularly from a gagged press, then that’s all OK. Keep endlessly repeating the same unbelievable but convenient excuses.

JC said :

Mordd said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally.

You are muddying your own waters.

The UN refugee convention does not obsess over the means of transport, unlike for some weird reason the bigots, who are confusing arriving with seeking asylum, the two are separate.

Sorry pal, you’re just trying to convolute the issue to suit you’re own agenda, which seems to be nothing more than throwing about pejorative labels for people you don’t like.

For starters, it’s not the UN convention that determines if it’s illegal. It’s the Migration Act. The UN convention just stipulates that we won’t punish them providing they have met the conditions (which they have not). I said “by boat” because it was easier than typing out the technical term as outlined in the Migration ACT – “unauthorised maritime arrival”. But regardless, arriving without a visa by boat is unlawful.

Get your facts straight.

Dictation Test and Fries with that?

Acton said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally

Why then has none of these thousands of people you claim are breaking the law been charged with this offence? Not one. Ever.

You would think that these ‘Tough on Asylum Seeker’ governments would have charged at least one person by now if they were breaking the law. But they haven’t. Not one. Ever.

What possible explanation could there be for the Government failing to enforce this law?

Could it be because that the Government knows full well that it is not illegal to arrive without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum? Just possibly Mysteryman, the Government knows a bit more than you!

Why do you think they get detained when they attempt to arrive here? There’s a reason why they face detainment, while you and I can travel outside of Australia and return without being detained. It’s because we aren’t arriving unlawfully, and they are.

Mordd said :

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally.

You are muddying your own waters.

The UN refugee convention does not obsess over the means of transport, unlike for some weird reason the bigots, who are confusing arriving with seeking asylum, the two are separate.

Sorry pal, you’re just trying to convolute the issue to suit you’re own agenda, which seems to be nothing more than throwing about pejorative labels for people you don’t like.

For starters, it’s not the UN convention that determines if it’s illegal. It’s the Migration Act. The UN convention just stipulates that we won’t punish them providing they have met the conditions (which they have not). I said “by boat” because it was easier than typing out the technical term as outlined in the Migration ACT – “unauthorised maritime arrival”. But regardless, arriving without a visa by boat is unlawful.

Get your facts straight.

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally

Why then has none of these thousands of people you claim are breaking the law been charged with this offence? Not one. Ever.

You would think that these ‘Tough on Asylum Seeker’ governments would have charged at least one person by now if they were breaking the law. But they haven’t. Not one. Ever.

What possible explanation could there be for the Government failing to enforce this law?

Could it be because that the Government knows full well that it is not illegal to arrive without a visa for the purpose of seeking asylum? Just possibly Mysteryman, the Government knows a bit more than you!

Leon said :

justin heywood said :

Well it’s unfortunate that reality and evidence disagree with your anecdotes John.

The immigration department’s own reports and data outline the significant cost of resettling refugees and the lower outcomes they have in education and employment for many years after they arrive. Which is completely understandable when you consider the position they’ve often come from.

It’s fine to want to help people but don’t ignore or downplay the large challenges and costs that come with doing so with some idealised notion of a refugee.

…and the significant costs of the current anti-refugee policies?

$55 million for 2 refugees shoved off to Cambodia?

Bigotry is not price sensitive, maximum pain is always worth whatever you throw at it.

The draconian anti-democratic secrecy used to hide what is actually happening is the real price we are having to pay for both major parties fighting over the xenophobic vote.

The currently high costs are mainly to do with the change in policy settings under the previous government that caused the massive increase in arrivals who had/have to be processed. Once those remaining in detention are processed and released/accepted elsewhere costs will drop significantly due to the reduced need for detention facilities and operational costs.

Even still, it’s far cheaper financially than resettling 50k refugees per year as has been suggested by the Greens.

And what this has to do with bigotry or xenophobia I’m not sure, unless you’re suggesting having a controlled border is xenophobic in and of itself.

I would think a workable refugee resettlement program where we help those most in need rather than giving preferential treatment to those with the means and ability to travel through multiple third countries to get here would be something that everyone would support.

Shouldn’t equitable treatment be the starting point of any program?

justin heywood said :

Well it’s unfortunate that reality and evidence disagree with your anecdotes John.

The immigration department’s own reports and data outline the significant cost of resettling refugees and the lower outcomes they have in education and employment for many years after they arrive. Which is completely understandable when you consider the position they’ve often come from.

It’s fine to want to help people but don’t ignore or downplay the large challenges and costs that come with doing so with some idealised notion of a refugee.

…and the significant costs of the current anti-refugee policies?

$55 million for 2 refugees shoved off to Cambodia?

Bigotry is not price sensitive, maximum pain is always worth whatever you throw at it.

The draconian anti-democratic secrecy used to hide what is actually happening is the real price we are having to pay for both major parties fighting over the xenophobic vote.

Mysteryman said :

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally.

You are muddying your own waters.

The UN refugee convention does not obsess over the means of transport, unlike for some weird reason the bigots, who are confusing arriving with seeking asylum, the two are separate.

Considering what else has been written into our Immigration Act should we perhaps be reinstating the infamous Dictation Test to our laws?

Personally I find the lonely figure of Tony Abbott on Manly wharf hilarious. Is this force of habit?

Is he trying to turn back more boat people? Shouldn’t he be representing all £10 Poms by standing at Circular Quay trying to turn back, belatedly, the White Boat People of 1788 that started all the trouble?

HenryBG said :

The benefits I see in giving asylum to those fleeing persecution, is that it is the right thing to do for someone who is in dire straits.

I have criticised Governments of both persuasions for not cracking down on tourist visa overstayers and these can number tens of thousands each year. I heard of a statistic when I was more involved than I am now of 60,000 overstayers in about 2008 or so.

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

I don’t see why compassion should not reign for those on Nauru and Manus Is. We can still have the disincentives for people smuggling (although I don’t support the turn back policy) but surely those on Nauru and Manus w]have stayed there long enough. We know that most of them are genuine and those who aren’t can be shipped home.

We actually benefit in this country by having a genuine polyglot population. Apart from not having British fat laden food everyday and enjoying the multicultural cuisine that we do, thanks to the many cultures we have living alongside us, we actually have a unique insight how other tick.

It is the fear of the unknown which breeds xenophobia and it is the false straw-man tactics of those who wish to exploit and create fear that does the, us and the whole nation a disservice.

In answer to the suggestion that I seek the views of folks in the UK, I have. and they are more xenophobic then ever I could imagine.

But it is the fact that there has not been a policy of distribution of cultures like we see in Canberra. IN other Oz capitals and indeed overseas aplenty, enclaves of cultures have been allowed to spring up, bringing all the ancient and irrational antipathies and enmities and allowing them to fester in those enclaves.

In Canberra, there are no enclaves, no ghettos of cultural differences. People have all cultures and religions living in the their streets and we celebrate that diversity. I’m proud of it and only wish people like Morrison and Dutton would drift our of Manuka and Kingston , up to Belco or Tuggers and see how real multiculturalism works.

It is this understanding which makes the ACT a more compassionate and a less xenophobic city than elsewhere.

John I strongly suspect you are arguing with a fellow Pom, but of a different cut. Like Pauline Hansen one of those who thinks they have special and exclusive rights to this country, not shared by anyone else, including the original inhabitants.

HenryBG said :

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

Please top muddying the waters with this statement.

Under both our Migration Act, and the UN refugee convention, it IS illegal to arrive by boat without a visa unless you’ve come *directly from the state you are seeking asylum from*. As the boats are coming from Indonesia, without any Indonesian asylum seekers on board, then yes, the asylum seekers are arriving here illegally.

Well it’s unfortunate that reality and evidence disagree with your anecdotes John.

The immigration department’s own reports and data outline the significant cost of resettling refugees and the lower outcomes they have in education and employment for many years after they arrive. Which is completely understandable when you consider the position they’ve often come from.

It’s fine to want to help people but don’t ignore or downplay the large challenges and costs that come with doing so with some idealised notion of a refugee.

John Hargreaves12:22 pm 30 May 16

The benefits I see in giving asylum to those fleeing persecution, is that it is the right thing to do for someone who is in dire straits.

I have criticised Governments of both persuasions for not cracking down on tourist visa overstayers and these can number tens of thousands each year. I heard of a statistic when I was more involved than I am now of 60,000 overstayers in about 2008 or so.

It is not illegal to seek asylum. it is illegal to overstay a visa.

I don’t see why compassion should not reign for those on Nauru and Manus Is. We can still have the disincentives for people smuggling (although I don’t support the turn back policy) but surely those on Nauru and Manus w]have stayed there long enough. We know that most of them are genuine and those who aren’t can be shipped home.

We actually benefit in this country by having a genuine polyglot population. Apart from not having British fat laden food everyday and enjoying the multicultural cuisine that we do, thanks to the many cultures we have living alongside us, we actually have a unique insight how other tick.

It is the fear of the unknown which breeds xenophobia and it is the false straw-man tactics of those who wish to exploit and create fear that does the, us and the whole nation a disservice.

In answer to the suggestion that I seek the views of folks in the UK, I have. and they are more xenophobic then ever I could imagine.

But it is the fact that there has not been a policy of distribution of cultures like we see in Canberra. IN other Oz capitals and indeed overseas aplenty, enclaves of cultures have been allowed to spring up, bringing all the ancient and irrational antipathies and enmities and allowing them to fester in those enclaves.

In Canberra, there are no enclaves, no ghettos of cultural differences. People have all cultures and religions living in the their streets and we celebrate that diversity. I’m proud of it and only wish people like Morrison and Dutton would drift our of Manuka and Kingston , up to Belco or Tuggers and see how real multiculturalism works.

It is this understanding which makes the ACT a more compassionate and a less xenophobic city than elsewhere.

“So Minister Dutton has raised the spectre once again that these asylum-seekers, speaking no English and being largely illiterate in their own language, being innumerate and stealing places in the dole queue, are a major threat to our way of life”

No, he didn’t John. But I wouldn’t expect you to know the difference between what you claim he said and what he actually said.

Dutton’s claims regarding literacy and welfare were backed up by data from the BLNA report. I suggest you read it before you make more posts about this issue. He made those claims to highlight the fact that raising the intake numbers to levels desired by the Greens would not be fair or sustainable since people being granted humanitarian visas require a lot more assistance in integrating than simply dumping them in a city/town. And he’s right.

“From where I’m sitting, I can’t see a huge threat from an influx of genuine refugees numbering less than half the number of people who live in Tuggeranong.”

You’re right; you can’t see. 34,000 people a year is almost the population of Orange, every single year. You haven’t thought much about the requirements to successfully integrate that many people. More than assisting them with literacy/education, finances, vocations, and accommodation, there are the more long term social issues related to people who have experienced significant trauma (which, if they are genuine asylum seekers, they will have experienced). Trauma related psychological help is time consuming, expensive and requires trained professionals to help with – especially if we hope to successful integrate these people into Australian society (which we do). We can’t dump them somewhere and just hope for the best without providing them the support they need. It wouldn’t be fair to them or the people already living there (which, historically speaking, wouldn’t be in any of the areas the Greens politicians live in – fancy that!).

I think there is scope to increase the current numbers, but it needs to be done gradually with a view to ensure that the quality of care and assistance provided to these people doesn’t suffer. I have absolutely no confidence in the Greens to be able to accurately assess sustainable levels, and I think Labor is just trying to buy votes without a real plan.

Back when I was a young Uni student and an indolent work-shy son of similarly work-shy immigrants (my father was a Stateless refugee when he came here), I was studying and holding down three jobs, one of which was contract cleaning and maintenance for the NSW Housing Commission.

We frequently ran into British migrants who had come to Australia and immediately put their hand out for Housing Commission (who they still called The Council) subsidised accommodation and seemed incapable of standing on their own two feet.

Those people were of course not representative of all British migrants, but noticeable (for me) was that I did not encounter any non-British/Australian “bludgers”. It seemed a very Anglo world. All the migrants I knew, and that was a huge number from many different cultures and backgrounds, were hard working and looking after themselves.

Since then I have encountered many newer migrants through employing them on a property of mine, and not unexpectedly there are some that have trouble with English, but I assume are fluent in at least their own language, English just being another string to their bow. They were all hard workers and many of them by necessity had to work for themselves.

There is a sharply hypocritical stance taken by the surreptitious racists out there, as usual having a field day with any new arrivals to Australia, of both demanding that refugees not be allowed to work and then complaining about them having to live off social security, or having to resort to illegal and usually underpaid work. Usually menial and unwanted jobs by Australian citizens.

How these people can simultaneously be “lazy” and “stealing jobs” is up to the actively non-imagination of the bigots to work out.

If you had stayed in the England John you would see first hand how the “reaping of the benefits” of open door migration has enriched the UK.
Ask the people who lost family in the numerous terrorist attacks in the UK during this period.
To your credit, you “tolerated” early re-settlement life in Australia without complaint and had a strong work ethic. I admire you for not seeking the dole and accepting any job that was going. That mentatlity is indeed an alien concept to most young Australians I know these days.
Of course, it is all very different today with quasi illegal immigrants (and their taxpayer funded advocates) constantly complaining about their standard of accommodation (luxury compared to what you had) and their “rights”.
Not one of them refuses any of the many taxpayer funded entitlements that are foisted upon them and they are not really interested in getting a job and contributing to our society.
They enjoy our system and retain their own culture, things that you appear to ignore.
It is not only Nimbin and Kuranda who have whole communities on the the public teat either. Several suburbs in Western Sydney are also in that league.
Where are the “benefits” for us?

Last Night SBS presented “Hitler’s Jewish Neighbours”, showing yet another side to a story of just how some people turn on other people because they are different and there is an opportunity to steal from them. When the Jews tried to escape the persecution and gas chambers, to flee to another country, most countries turned them away or interned them.

Ironically, the Allies benefited from all those who did succeed in escaping the Nazis, and that helped us win the War.

wildturkeycanoe7:34 am 30 May 16

There are some big differences between yourself and refugees nowadays. The first, blatantly obvious one, is that you arrived legally and with appropriate documents. The current batch has tried to enter illegally and now claim unfair treatment. Will an open border policy suit your argument, encouraging foreigners to come here en mass and anonymously without criminal checks? It can’t be easy for the Australian security forces to verify their background with only a fictitious name to go on.
The other big difference is the job market. Have you not been watching the news, seeing how farmers are bulldozing orchards, fighting for survival because of supermarket swindling? Manufacturing and mining are becoming extinct. When you arrived we had need of tradespeople for large projects such as the Snowy scheme and housing. What have we now except more unemployment as jobs get made redundant due to our technological advances and a poor economy.
Our own children struggle to get these apple picking jobs you rave about, then battle with cost of living if and when they get a mundane minimum wage “career” that has no structure for progression.
Until this “land of opportunity” turns around and creates more jobs, we don’t need more mouths to feed and an extra burden on the welfare system, which if you look at the stats is where most refugees end up.

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.