Gillard opens our borders to anyone…anytime.
So yesterday the ALP/Greens took the first step in bringing in a Carbon tax that the people don’t want and now today they are adopting in-shore processing for unauthorised boat arrivals that the people don’t want.
Just exactly who are they governing for? Radical Greens…Left wing nutters….human rights lawyers…unions. What about the rest of us – those determined to kick them out?
Is it a death wish?
Some are concerned about the way people will take it in the community.”Why? They never have before. Under a plan presented to the Labor caucus today, asylum-seekers will be processed onshore with fast-tracked health checks, the right to work and living money provided. …and a car and housing, I presume. If this actually happens they will want to stay in their bunkers – the bulk of the population will be furious.
Facebook
Twitter
Kev could not have said it better they piss on the beacon on the hill drinken Cafe au Lardie la las.
Diggers do not know contracts or contract work as workers know it. The shift is 24 /7 as long as it takes.
Good night Julia.
Correct me if I’m wrong but the Gillard boat policy is now to have adopted the Greens official boat policy and purely a result of the ALP ‘anything but Nauru’ policy. Watch them desperately try to blame Abbott for this and watch the public get increasingly furious with the level of stupidity, deception and incompetence.
Your’e right Kev, disgusting…I’ve paid taxes for 40 years, worked my guts out. My Dad fought in WW2 and saw action for Australia subsequently. My Uncle copped it for our flag in Nam, my cousin is currently in Afghanistan. My poor old Ma cannot even afford to go the dentist and sometimes I pay her phone bill for her. Meanwhile WTF is my free house, medical care, income support and education????
It’s time for some fact checking on this issue.
Some myths –
1. Boat people are a risk to our security.
Bullshit. They are vetted much more thoroughly than the much higher numbers of unauthorised arrivals arriving by other means. No person arriving by boat has ever been convicted (or for that matter charged) with terrorism.
2. They are given housing and cars. Absolute crap. No asylum seekers are eligible for Centrelink payments of any kind. A small percentage of asylum seekers get access to the Red Cross Asylum Seeker Assistance Scheme for a limited period of time. This scheme provides for an income that is 89% of what a person would get if receiving Newstart Allowance. They have to be housed in detention, but if you regard being locked up in high security accommodation offshore or in the scrub as a benefit, you need a logic bypass. Once out of detention, permanent refugees are eligible to receive Centrelink but just at the same rate as an Australian permanent resident. Tell me about Centrelink buying cars for clients, and you can also sell me the Harbour Bridge.
3. Boat arrivals are out biggest problem. Not so. Only a quarter of unauthorised arrivals come by boat. The largest majority come by plane, and the majority of these are from mainland China.
4. They are flooding in. Untrue. We receive each year just 0.03% of the World’s refugees and displaced people. In 2010 we took 13,740 of the 42 million refugees and displaced people in the world. Back in the late seventies, the system initiated by the Fraser Government ultimately resulted in some 250,000 Vietnamese refugees and immigrants being taken in. I don’t recall any blood on the streets after that. Refugee and humanitarian entrants made up just 6.6% of the places in our overall permanent immigration program in 2010. The lowest it’s been since 1975.
The boat people issue is a political wedge – no more, no less. It has absolutely nothing to do with border security. Both sides of politics use it. People have short memories. The quarter of a million Vietnamese refugees were settled without major political controversy because the policy back then was bipartisan. Howard saw Tampa as a political opportunity, and since then it has become a wedge.
The irony, of course, is that processing is now on shore, because the High Court doesn’t have to acknowledge the politics. How sweet it is.
It’s time someone knocked Abbott’s and Gillard’s heads together on this issue, to convince them to close the money drains that are the detention centres and to opt for community detention. Somehow I doubt we’d be murdered in our beds.
1. The boat people issue is not a terrorism issue, there may be a point of view that a fair per centage of them come from places where terroism is taught in madrassars or their Middle east analogies. The issue predates the war on terror in any case. The issue is about asylum, citizenship and population size. The ALP introduced mandatory detention. For me the Viets were definitely asylum seekers, with the fall of Saigon and those boat trips truly were ships of the dammed. Some of mates were viet.
2.They do get benefits and are also fast tracked for citizenships, which means they get family repatriation, one for ten, seeing they tend to come from large families, something not discussed, the follow on effect.
3. You make no mention that they break our borders intentionally and you use the others the overstayers as an analogy who entered the country legally at first and are in fact overstayers, something every first world country has as a plain management practice. They intentionally make initial identification difficult, where as over stayers have entered legally.
4 You make no mention of criminality, take prostitution, where it is illegal for both parties to the transaction to conduct it, boat people and traffickers are not in a human rights asylum process, asylum is normally the first place of flight, so you mish mash, deceptive illegal conducts into human rights concern where immigration is declined on criminal behaviors routinely in normal processes.
5. You make no case or excuse for the hundreds drowned and many more yet to to be drowned. You make no case for maritime hazard they are, you make no case for the expense of policing and patrolling hidden in the defence budget and if added would truly inflate that so called Boat policy cost of 1 billion dollar per annum.
6. You make no case for more deserving cases in camps across the third world in borderline life and death situations displaced from the Australian quota one of the highest in the world.
7.Have you ever lived in a ghetto, where one culture supplants another, I have, so there are some in the community who have concerns. The riots of the EU and demands for Sharia law do not fit Australian culture, so of course there is concern. For the record my dad was an immigrant so that makes me a wog boy or kraut boy.
8.Community concern about finite job opportunities, concern about a big Australia and sustainablility are conscience issues and the comunity firstly has a right to be concerned and comment and not censored on pc human right muli culti bullshit. Big Australia raises people’s hackles.
Kymbayah bro, it’s not not about your caring, otherwise there would be photo on your blog of the family you sponsored or your work in displacement camps. It’s about your opinion versus others in the use of Australian resources, don’t play the compassion card.
Climb down from the bully pulpit. 2 Billion dollars per year could be better spent in human rights issues, either Australian or offshore.
“The boat people issue is not a terrorism issue”
Absolutely, but there are plenty in the Liberal Party who claim it is.
“which means they get family repatriation”
As have all refugees since WW2. That’s nothing new.
“they break our borders intentionally”
That’s what all refugees do, and unless you can get inside the overstayers’ heads, you wouldn’t know what their intentions on arrival are. Overstayers don’t make good TV – they just get out of their planes and collect their luggage like everyone else – it’s harder to demonise them.
“You make no mention of criminality”
One of the differences between the Vietnamese boat people and the current group is that the Viets didn’t use people smugglers because they had access to their own boats. If our government worked as hard at setting up agreements with neighbouring countries as they did in the seventies, the “problem” of the people smugglers would disappear as they wouldn’t be necessary.
“You make no case or excuse for the hundreds drowned and many more yet to to be drowned”
My last point applies.
“the expense of policing and patrolling hidden in the defence”
Again, the last point applies.
“You make no case for more deserving cases in camps across the third world”
This is a very strange argument. There will always be “more deserving cases”, millions in fact, who don’t get into refugee camps, as well as the 42 million plus in the camps known by UNHCR.
“Have you ever lived in a ghetto”
Depends what you mean by a ghetto. I’ve lived all over Queensland from Mt Isa to Mackay, and have lived O/S – I’m not sure what this has to do with anything. If a concern about refugees is that they will move into ghettos, that’s a problem that needs to be addressed, and the introduction of an Australia card, and zoning for tax and immigration purposes would assist. But I guess that would be considered “social engineering”.
“For the record my dad was an immigrant”
For the record, in this country we’re all immigrants or descended from immigrants, unless we’re Murris. My ancestors were boat people. The boat was the Erin-go-bragh which arrived in Moreton Bay in August 1862. That makes me an Australian of Irish descent.
“Community concern about finite job opportunities”
Yeah, right. I wonder why MacDonald’s has to employ Philippinos on 457 Visas in places like Emerald and Roma. Could it have something to do with the difficulty they have recruiting Australians? Ask any employer in a rural or remote location about recruiting (except for miners – they FIFO – don’t live in these communities). Unemployment in this country is the lowest it’s been for years.
“conscience issues”
So you’re OK with people being locked up in detention centres with open-ended “sentences”. Even your average rapist knows when he’s eligible for parole.
“demands for Sharia law”
What demands? The ones you read about on Bolt’s blog? In any case, a very large proportion of the current refugees from the Middle East are Christian, with estimates of three quarters of a million fleeing Iraq (for example) since the war. These same issues were raised about the Vietnamese, and the majority of them have become productive Australians.
“Kymbayah bro”
I’m not sure of the relevance of this. You tell me what’s rational about the way the issue is treated now by politicians that use it as a wedge. If common sense applied, we’d be dealing with it successfully as we did thirty years ago. As to my blog, I work with Sudanese refugees in my parish, but I respect their privacy, and you won’t see that written up.
I meant ghetto, not country towns because I’ve lived in a few towns myself. I grew up in a ghetto for all intents and purposes. But the EU model does not look good. Considerable ghettoisation has occurred.
Refugee is a technical term, look it up, again you skate over the citizenship shopping issue going for the heart string guitar.
You ignore the drowning issue in your compassion. Not relevant to your compassion.
I know we are all immigrants I am half dutch and half mixer, bit of irish a bit of scot, mostly 3 or 4 generation Australian. The other half.
Actually no I am not ok with people in indefinite detention just as long as it takes to ascertain their status, not kids at all, and I was an advocate in the debate on this issue, the old lefty trick putting other intents without gettings facts right, did I remark detention except to say it was originally ALP policy. But I do support TPVs, in lieu of legitmate refuge application before arrival. I don’t think rewarding bad or illegal conduct from a place of safety for self selectors is a good idea.
As for employment, yes there may be pockets of low paid work available, 19 dollars above unemployment, a week. No one denies gaps, just saying how community views it. I have no issue with legitmate 457s linked to labor shortage in regions. But that is an immigration issue not an illegal border crossing issue.
I have read a lot of comment not the opinion writers, ordinary thread comment.
Those sudanese were they boat people or were they refugees under the quota system? That is the quiet bit you do not remark.
You refuse to argue the real point of aylum and refugee as a lot of people see it.
Finally the sustainability big Australia question is ignored. I specifically asked how many you support financially, because you are big on asking all of Australia to fund your compassion. Not get in touch with agencies or help enroll for social services etc. How many in your house at your cost.
My precis was about the various comment I read and I have heard.
Leave it there. The issue is illegal border crossing, half a globe away from point of flight on normal transport, normally passenger flights with cabin service, paying 10 K for a citizenship outcome on a leaky boat costing taxpayers 10 times the cost of a normal immigrant or refugee.
No point arguing with you. Me I applied for 400 jobs, at 45 on one leg no takers, dependent missuss and four kids, so I can’t hear your compassion guitar weeping mate.
“…resulted in some 250,000 Vietnamese refugees and immigrants being taken in…”
All but a few processed offshore.
“…and you can also sell me the Harbour Bridge…”
That’s never been in doubt.
For the record, I would like to see that money spent in Afghanistan in military outreach programs in districts we supervise or in Indigenous programs focused micro and not top down. Micro finance and micro housing projects.
Stuff locally managed by line people and not Canberra or State public servants, and never UN controlled.
But that’s me.
“So you’re OK with people being locked up in detention centres with open-ended “sentences”.
Sure – no papers, no identity, no entry.
“You make no case or excuse for the hundreds drowned and many more yet to be drowned”
Still hasn’t.
“demands for Sharia law”
Here’s three examples…
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#!/pages/Sharia4australia/242068249172882
“One day Australia will be ruled by sharia, no doubt. That is why non-Muslims are worried, because they know one day they won’t be able to drink their beer, they won’t be able to eat their pork and they won’t be able to do their homosexual acts, because one day they know they will be controlled…”
Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon at NSW Parliament House Jan 2011
“The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils wants Muslims to be able to marry, divorce and conduct financial transactions under the principles of sharia law. In a submission to the Federal Parliament’s Committee on Multicultural Affairs, the Federation has asked for the change. It argues that all Australians would benefit if Islamic laws were adopted as mainstream legislation.”
“SHARIA law has become a shadow legal system within Australia, endorsing polygamous and underage marriages that are outlawed under the Marriage Act. A system of “legal pluralism” based on sharia law “abounds” in Australia, according to new research by legal academics Ann Black and Kerrie Sadiq. They have found that Australian Muslims have long been complying with the shadow system of religious law as well as mainstream law. But in family law, not all Muslims were registering their marriages and some were relying on religious ceremonies to validate unions that breached the Marriage Act. This included “polygynist marriages”, in which a man takes multiple wives, and marriages where one party is under the lawful marriage age.”
No so blind as 17 bobby red-herring…
And:
‘“Muslims have many misconceptions about themselves as Muslims and their responsibilities to others and to the state, he says. ”I want to tackle the basis of Muslims’ understanding of their interaction with non-Muslims on two levels. First, is it based on hatred, war and enmity or peace, love and mutual existence? Second, is it based on purely religious principles or on civil and humanitarian principles in an Islamic framework?
I want to remove the idea that the natural relation is one of enmity to one in which Muslims exist with non-Muslims in the world, and that’s a reality. What Muslims have to do is live in peace and love with non-Muslims, they have to integrate completely and complement the society they live in. I don’t want Muslims to be outsiders.”’
Ibrahim Abu Mohamed, Mufti of Australia.
Yeah I forgot that bit about sharia law.
Australia is a modern secular democracy with freedom to worship without harm. Government and law over ride religion in citizen human rights freedom and expressions of freedom.
Peter Costello said that.
PeterW plagiarises the Blot – http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mufti_says_what_i_had_better_not/
to find some hate speech. Why am I not surprised?
The majority of Muslims, like the majority of Christians, are not fundamentalists. This is fear-mongering – pure and simple.
Read some history –
“In the early 1980s, the refugee program expanded to an annual intake of up to 22,000, the largest annual intake in 30 years and a level not seen since. Vietnamese refugees settled from camps in Asia made up the bulk of new arrivals, with significant numbers of refugees also from Laos, Cambodia and Eastern Europe and smaller groups of Soviet Jews, Chileans, El Salvadorians, Cubans and members of ethnic minorities from Iraq (Assyrians, Armenians and Chaldeans).”
(http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/resources/history.php)
Back then, refugees weren’t demonised and used as political fodder. The result was a successful (and much cheaper) programme.
There were a minority of ratbags who had it in for the Vietnamese and others who arrived as refugees in the late seventies and early eighties – I remember encountering one of them at Enoggera when driving a bus full of Vietnamese kids, but this neurosis wasn’t cultivated the way it was in 2001, so it died a natural death.
The facts, particularly if you compare the numbers in the seventies with those since 2001, simply give the lie to the dog-whistling which we are bombarded with from both sides these days. Our country has gone backwards thanks to politicians who are led by prejudice, rather than leading by principle.
A well-organised programme based on our international obligations, and similar to successful 70s/80s practice, would eliminate the people smugglers, allow the closure of the expensive off-shore and on-shore detention centres, and free our defence personnel from refugee patrols, a task that should never be their core activity. The high court got it right – all we need now is for the politicians to follow suit.
Then we are agreed,
TPVs for law breakers, no citizenship unless earnt.
316558.
762
17
“PeterW plagiarises the Blot to find some hate speech.”
17 bobby red-herring liar at it again. “Hate speech”, “plagiarise”, really? It was a quote from an interview published in the Age. You know that paragon of lefty num nums printed in Melbourne. The quote was clearly attributed to Australia’s new Mufti. What is it with 17 bobby red-herrings almost sexual fixation on Andrew Bolt? Is it Andrew’s firm jaw and neatly coiffured hair perhaps?
http://www.theage.com.au/national/the-man-and-the-mufti-20111019-1m7zs.html#ixzz1bGD34uKm
Yet again 17 bobby red-herring liar proves he can’t read or comprehend. He missed the part where the mufti is quoted as saying “What Muslims have to do is live in peace and love with non-Muslims, they have to integrate completely and complement the society they live in. I don’t want Muslims to be outsiders.”
But that’s not surprising as 17 bobby red-herring liar often misses the point of text he’s clearly too comprehension challenged to read. It’s odd though that “peace and love” somehow equates to hate speech in 17 bobby red-herrings weird Bolt obsessed world.
“I remember encountering one of them at Enoggera when driving a bus full of Vietnamese kids…” Ha ha ha ha ha… Yeah we believe that one.
There is nothing in common between the Vietnamese fleeing their homeland because 17 bobby red-herring’s favourite colour regime was doing what regimes of that colour always do and the current illegal boat arrivals in the north west. Nothing whatsoever.
Notably the examples of calls for Sharia Law he claimed didn’t exist have been ignored as he tries to hide behind the new pile of reeking red-herrings he’s heaped onto the page – talk about cultivating a “neurosis”.
“talk about cultivating a “neurosis””
The only neurosis is PeterW’s fixation with personal abuse. Father Jack personified…
Perhaps you’d better re-read Bolt’s original rant and consider his reason for posting it. Take a day or two – you’ll probably need it…..
“Perhaps you’d better re-read Bolt’s original rant…”
Unlike 17 bobby red-herring Bolt felcher, I don’t read his blog – 17 Bobby red-herring should try skimming a few other blogs and news sites instead of staring slack-jawed and drooling with desire at Mr Bolt’s page all day long. He might find his Bolted on scales drop from his eyes so he can join the rest of us in the real world instead of hiding in his dissolute Malthusian leftist fantasy.
Though, given his propensity for Bolt man-love it’s no wonder he chooses to ignore the seeping pus of Sharia law in Australia. After all, in countries where Sharia law is the law of the land, his Bolt man-love would result in him being buried up to his neck in a pit before being stoned to death. Such is the religion of peace.
I forgot the other obvious neurosis – accusing anyone who disagrees with him of homoerotic fantasies – now that’s revealing…
Has Andy rejected you 17 bobby red-herring? And I said nothing about “homoerotic fantasies”. Your fixation with the cute Dutchman is real and clear for all to see.
“I said nothing about “homoerotic fantasies”
“his Bolt man-love”
Liar……
Fantasy: “The faculty or activity of imagining things that are impossible or improbable.”
There is nothing “impossible” or “improbable” about 17 bobby red-herring’s obsession with Andrew Bolt. It’s plain for all to see.
Now what was that about sharia law in Australia again?
Try and keep on topic, there’s a dear…
PeterW on Andrew Bolt –
“firm jaw and neatly coiffured hair”
“the cute Dutchman”
Who has the fixation? Grab yourself a copy of the DSM-IV-TR, and look up “projection”.
As for Sharia Law – not really a problem in this country – market fundamentalism is a much more dangerous religion.
Amusing that 17 bobby red-herring has a self-diagnostic tool for mental illness at his fingertips.
“As for Sharia Law – not really a problem in this country…”
Except for the children forced into arranged polygamous marriages and so on… Nope, no problems there at all.
How many ‘Bolt Reports’ do you have saved on that special little thumb-drive labelled “Andy” you keep in your front trouser pocket next to your conscripted manness?