Why is no-one upset about the vastly higher numbers (50,000 when i last checked a year or so ago) of poms and seppos who illegally (yes genuinely illegally - no if's no but's) stay in Oz without a valid visa.
Oh yeh - it coz they look like us.
They work illegally, they pay no taxes, they even claim the kn dole etc. But hey they look like us so it's awright I spose. Right?
That number again - 50,000. Should we ALL be cranky about that?
Smedg,
With your posts I find it difficult to follow your train of thought. This is probably because of your writing style which is probably a trait of your personality type.
If you read a book titled "Personality Plus" by Florence Littauer you will see described the four main personality types and their variations.
Yes, this is off topic but may help with clearer understanding of each other.
This is absolutely not a labelling or boxing of people or characters as we are all unique.
The Four Main Types are:-
Popular Sanguine; The Extrovert. The Talker. The Optimist.
Perfect Melancholy; The Introvert. The Thinker. The Pessimist.
Powerful Choleric; The Extrovert. The Doer. The Optimist.
Peaceful Phlegmatic; The Introvert. The Watcher. The Pessimist.
According to Florence we are all dominant in one of these types with influence from one or more of the other types in varying degrees.
I am picking you as a Sanguine with a bit of Choleric and some Melancholy. I bet you love socialising, dining out and travel. I am sure your avatar does.
My personality is predominantly Melancholy with a good bit of Choleric and probably some Phlegmatic. Nothing short of neatness and tidyness is acceptable in my household. When I fix something it stays fixed but it sometimes takes a while to get around to fixing it. I do enjoy a variety of acquaintences though which shows some Sanguine traits.
I don't recall ever finding something morally objectionable in any of your posts but just am not sure where you are going because of the flowery stuff you couch it in.
An observation, NOT a criticism. Don't change nothin' in the way you post or anything else because of anything I or anybody else says.
This is a really great forum and IMHO, My Space, Face Book etc, etc are not a scratch on it.
Back to the subject of the thread:- Illegal Immigration in leaky boats.
I DO believe we (via our government) should say "Enough is enough!!!!". If you attempt to arrive in Australian Territory illegally, on boats owned by people smugglers or any other illegal means, you WILL be transported back to your country of origin.
Achieving legal residency in Australia is not the solution to their problem.
Achieving a legal and just governmental system and judiciary in their country IS the solution to their problem.
)
The order of things would run:
1. Enter quaint country of loyal convicts (and a handful dodgy boat arrivals - that seem jolly unpopular).
2. Get on dole next day.
An old housemate of mine yrs ago did exactly this the day after he arrived (he was too sh!tfaced on the day he arrived and had to be assisted by 3 staff off the plane.. I kid you not). BTW - I believe Ozzys can expect a similar entitlement (or used to be able too) in the UK. They love a loyal convict.
3. Enjoy the dole - and cashy work - for the length of visa.
Er.. this is bit is not based on my old housemate just to clarify. And he.. eventually.. became a dinky di (probably fugee loathing) Ozzy citizen. He's right here with us - bless him - he looks (pretty much) just like us.
4. Not really bother to do anything about the expiration of visa coz now have enough of a cashy network to get by.. will just dos er until I feel like sumpin else. 49999 other geezas can't be wrong.
BTW (and I have no figures here to be honest) I would have thought that policy is driven by numbers (and a need for a 'story to focus on' in the media with an election looming) whilst numbers of refugees the world over are driven by world events (famine, war, genocide.. trivial stuff like that) and not Oz policy.
If refugees that come to Oz know enough about Oz policies (and I'd doubt that TBH as the average Ozzy couldn't give you much accurate details on actual policy) to educate themselves on how that benefits them, then shouldn't we recognise that they see our lifestyle as attractive and compatible, and also bother to educate themselves on it. Wish all immigrants wanted to do that. Sound like prime candidates for entry to me.
Cisco why do you still (incorrectly) refer to the boat arrivals as illegal immigrants? You are 10% correct - 90% incorrect.
Can you please explain why you are not referring to the boat arrivals as refugees? [EDIT: Er.. bit tired today - maybe you are meaning to detain the 10% that aren't refugees at CI?]
Using inflamatory language and misleading terms for these arrivals is why the whole issue gets people so irate and why the govt ends up creating dodgy policy and spending far more $$ than is neccesary.
It is also why instead of having to fix hospitals, teacher salaries, etc etc both sides of govt get a complete free kick and don't have to focus on far more important policies for the next election and the near future.
Is that what anybody really wants? Stuff the actual factors that affect our health and future as long as we sort out a couple of hundred genuine refugees? And we criticise polies for pulling the wool over our eyes when we get around with an ugg boot on our noggin.
I agree with Cisco on the fact that the people smugglers are the ones to be punished.
Solution: Ship the smugglers (not the refugees) to indo and pay a small amount of $$ to lock the smugglers up in an indo jail. Cost to Oz would be a bowl of rice or so a day. Indo could pull a profit from locking them up. Ozz govt saves mega bucks. Smugglers think "No kn way am I rotting in an Indo jail instead of a cushy Oz hotel!!" Sorted.
That is the way to stop the boat arrivals INMHO.
Until we can stop the trade in transporting the refugees then we have to play fair by the international (and moral) obligations to process the genuine refugees humanely and decently.
omg omg omg. haha. Man this thread is getting long.
@ Cisco...
Lot of probablies in that first sentence of the post that's nearly all about me. haha i'm honoured. Maybe some truth in there, who knows. Thanks for the recommended reading by the way, oh and good luck keeping that house tidy...
Perhaps my writing is hard to follow because of my personality or lack of written skill. (I did notice you are much better at using the return key than me 
) I'd like to think that maybe somethings I said were hard to follow for another reason... Maybe we think very differently and bring very different perspectives to the argument. If so this would require me to think very differently than usual to follow your comments from your point of view (which initially appears to me to be a little ignorant, old fashioned and racist). I assume you don't see your comments that way? Similarly, you could try to read my posts from my point of view which may initially appear to you to be a function of my personality traits, overly optimistic and possibly not realistically practical. (I don't see them that way)
I've come to think that its far more productive to challenge thought processes than personality types so whilst my personality may not change greatly, I'll change in other ways. I'll keep an open mind when listening to others view points etc. That way I can continue to challenge my preconceptions and beliefs in light of new evidence.
@ GD, Cisco and Pweeds
Nothing more damaging than being inflexible and unable or unwilling to change our beliefs. That rigidness and closed mindedness can lead to horrible things like religious extremism or racial intolerance or judging others before knowing them.. You know like presuming guilt before a fair trail. Like saying someone is an Illegal Immigrant and detaining them until later finding oh **** what they really needed was asylum not more abuse of their human rights.
In terms of 'practical reality' No problem is ever solved durably unless its solution is
1. Practical (as suggested by cisco) But wait there's a number 2..
2. Mutually agreeable to those effected.
Unless these two criteria are met. The problem will go unsolved for at least one (but likely two or more) parties involved.
Case in point:
If we continue to look towards 'solutions' that only address concerns about australia's safety, we are only looking at options that involve imposing our will. Refugees will still need somewhere safe to go. Even if we had no empathy for anyone other than people already here, we would still be left with people trying to get here if it seems like a safer option. Thinking this way leads to comments like cisco made earlier about the option of deterring by executing of people smugglers. Or comments like Pweeds made earlier about policies needing to be tougher. Both of these options seem (IMO) to rely on ignoring human rights and ignoring our inherent ability to empathise.
For those who find my posts 'hard to follow'. The Gfunk has expressed sentiments similar to how I feel on the issue in a far more concise way.
I have elaborated because I've had time and because (IMO) some views expressed seem likely to lead to more intolerance, more abuse of human rights and therefore more problems.
I guess whoever invited this guy to deliver a sermon at their local mosque thought that Australia wasn't quite to their liking and needed some improvement.
www.heraldsun.com.au/nocookies?a=A.flavipes
Not that they would not be really grateful of the oportunity to live here mind you.
They just feel that our culture is not quite up to the standards they're used to.
I wonder how many, if any, walked out in disgust?
Insert face palm - HERE
This is what i am talking about Pweedas..
When you introduce a totally random and unrelated topic - such as dodgy religous zealots - you are inferring that they are related to the topic of refugee arrivals.
Even if you don't mean to do so there are far too many Pauline Hanson lovers out there who will happily jump on the bandwagon and completely associate these two TOTALLY unrelated topics.
Stop it. Don't spread ignorance and confusion. Breeding rascism and xenophobia is a bigger threat to the fabric of our society than accomadating a few refugees. Start a diff thread if you want to criticise the dodgy zealot but don't muddy the waters on a diff issue.
You a pollie or sumpin Pweed?
Gotta get some work happening and yes as is probably plainly obvious this issue (and other issues concerning race etc) get my blood going.
After reading back a few pages I noticed criticism of Indo packing the refugees off to a country more willing to accomodate them. Er.. anybody heard of Nairu?
Our previous govt won an election by following indo's lead there.
gasp. well! Whoever would have thought that?)
I agree it was a cheap shot but it just came on the radio as I was replying to these posts and it is vaguely relevant, but not very helpful.
Geez.
Fair enough Pweedas - top marks for copping it sweet.
I haven't harped on about it but the media has a lot to answer for in this country. All of the outlets including good ol' Aunty are happy to gloss over more pressing real issues and run with whatever strikes a chord with the public.
It used to be that the news media was there to inform, but more n more they seem to be there to keep us ignorant. Don't fall for it.
It is no accident that an article on boat arrivals will be preceded/followed by an article on radical mufti/population explosion/lebbo gangs etc etc. The media outlets know these issues are unrelated but they are happy to infer they are cause it makes a reaction a certainty. You are not alone there Pweedas.
Yeh - admitedly I was simplifying the Nairu/Indo/Oz comparison but basically Oz and Indo want to just push the boats onto the next reception.
I could be wrong on this but I can understand the vessel and the operators being classed as an illegal entry vessel but the non-crew occupants are not.
I am happy to corrected here, but I believe it is entirely legal to enter Oz waters if your are genuinely attempting to seek asylum. I don't think anyone is arguing (with a straight face) that 90% of boat entrants are not genuine asylum seekers.
Again, I am happy to be corrected here but I don't believe being classified as an (genuine) asylum seeker, and being given tempory status, automatically means you will be green thumbed for permenant residency.
The fact is Cisco that the proportion is found to be 90% genuine refugees so that means you should stop referring to them as illegal immigrants and start to use the more truthful term asylum seekers. Full stop.
If you continue to call them illegal immigrants - which they are not classified as by any govt organisation - then you may as well interchange terms such as cue-jumpers, towel heads, terrorists and monkeys that fell outta the trees.
OK I am embelishing with the monkeys, but the other terms have been used extensively in this country and are the sort of deliberately misleading language that has been used to manipulate public opinion for waaaayyyy too long. I think it also shows your disbelief at the reality of their situation.
Whilst economic circumstances are no doubt a factor for many, Tamils and minority race/religions in other countries cop cr@p that we could not handle for a week. It is not just a case of the grass being greener on the other side of the Indian Ocean. Try to imagine being a second class citizen, economically, culturally and spiritually oppressed and living in fear your of your life. It is justification for scraping together your meagre life savings and handing them over to scum like people smugglers if it means a glimpse at a decent life in my book. Maybe I fell outta tree too or sumpin?
Don't know what the red thumbs are all about. Most of what I said is just statement of fact.
OK. Fair enough. Let's stop with the semantics.
They are attempting to gain residency in Australia on the pretext of being persecuted at their place of origin so therefore they are "asylum seekers". I have no problem with that.
My understanding of the refugee protocols is this:-
1. They are processed to determine the truth of their claims.
2. Not true - deported. True - grant temporary residency visa.
3. Risk assessed. Low risk - allowed to enter community. High risk - detained.
4. Persecution at their place of origin ceases - repatriated.
This is all fair and what is expected of us under the international conventions and I totally agree with it.
Immigration, legal or not is a completely seperate issue. The genuine asylum seeker should have no expectation of achieveing permanent residency.
Concise Oxford Dictionary:-
asylum, Sanctuary, place of refuge...
refuge, shelter from pursuit or danger or trouble; person, thing, course, that gives shelter or is resorted to in difficulties....
There is no doubt that many people are using the refugee/asylum seeker ticket as a fast track/que jumping tool for immigration.
