Boat People: It's About A Fair Go

Henry Innis discusses why you should be morally appalled about boat people:

You know, for all the pontificating people do over boat people, they really don't represent much of our intake for refugees.

Which is funny, really, because it has always been such a hot button issue with Australians. The idea of someone approaching our shores illegally has never really sat that well with anyone. And I think I have a pretty good idea of why that is.

Australian's can't seriously look at boat people and think they are the end of the world. That they are the single greatest cause of destruction to our economy that there can be. That doesn't seem right, particularly given how low level of an impact they are.

So why is this such a hot button issue? Why don't Australian's want boat people arriving in Australia?

I'll tell you why: because it isn't fair.

The criteria for boat people is quite interesting. They need to come from a country where circumstances aren't that good. And they need to have the money to pay the people smugglers to make it all worthwhile (which, if you think about it, has to be a fair amount, what with them losing boats, risking crew, distributing bribes... it's an expensive process).

When the media and politicians get up and sell me the plight of boat people then, I don't exactly buy it. That isn't to say these people are desperate. But having said that, they have money. They aren't the most desperate cases out there. Why? Because they have the money to pay for the services of people smugglers.

Which means, every time one boat person is accepted into Australia, one person who is desperate, without money, in a refugee camp, misses out.

And that's the crux of the issue. That's why you should be against people arriving by boat.

Because when you do the logic, it simply isn't fair. 

Henry Innis ia a Vice President of the Sydney University Liberal Club. He"dabbles in| entrepreneurial pursuits" and writes in his spare time, and can be found on twitter @henryinnis 

 

Comments

[:)]

1.

*Australians

x2

[Jack Tower]

2.

"...every time one boat person is accepted into Australia, one person... misses out".

Incorrect. Even when the maximum annual intake of 13,750 is reached, to suggest 4000 people arriving by boat excluded 4000 other asylum applicants is simply not true. If you can provide an example of that "one-for-one" argument, please do. Just one year out of the last five will suffice.

MORE CRITICALLY:

In those years where the number of humanitarian visas is lower than the maximum Australia grant in a year (13,750), your thesis collapses completely.

Recent examples: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09.

It's difficult to "take someone's place" when there are still other places available. In those years, not ONE person missed out on a place.

Couldn't be further from: "every time one arrives, one person misses out".

[Mack Allen]

3.

And surely if that limit of 13,750 ever actually becomes inadequate to meet the needs of both groups, we could raise the cap a little. 13,750 isn't much.

[Jack Tower]

4.

Also... I see this piece is tagged "illegal immigrants", and there's reference to boats "illegally" approaching...

Someone who believes they have a claim to asylum can legally enter a country by any means whatsoever. As such, asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants.

This Press Council ruling will explain:

http://www.presscouncil.org.au/document-search/adj-1525-black-advertiser-april-2012/?LocatorGroupID=662&LocatorFormID=677&FromSearch=1

[Garry Nosworthy]

5.

The warm & fuzzies in our society certainly prefer that border gatecrashers are not referred to as 'illegal immigrants' or 'illegal arrivals' but I'm sure most Australians do.

Do the members of APC actually believe that these people are not illegals or is it simply a case of the members of the APC licking Julia Gillards backside (and there is a lot of it to lick) so that the government don't get out the big stick and crush the APC and put a Finklestein Gestapo in it's place?

I pray to god that this hideous Gillard gubberment is turfed out sooner rather than later
Amen

[David Capper]

6.

At the risk of being criticised as a leftard and in the spirit of the by-line to this website (ie there is room for everyone), assuming that people arriving by boat are the subject of persecution in their home country then the fact that they have used the resources available to them (ie money) to escape appears to be totally justified and irrelevant to the question of whether they are refugees. It seems to me to be human nature in the face of persecution and possible death to use whatever means available to escape. Fairness simply does not come into it when it comes to survival.

In the 1930's a number of Jewish people escaped persecution in Germany by paying to leave. Given what happened to those who where not able to escape, in hindsight who can blame them.

Personally if I was in fear of my life or that of my family to would do whatever it took to protect my and my family’s life.

Nor would I stop until I was in a country in which I felt safe. Nor would I want to languish in some fetid refugee camp if I could avoid it.

As I noted at the beginning the above is based upon the assumption that the persons fleeing their homeland are the subject of persecution.

[bluebell]

7.

I don't mind Australia accepting & giving GENUINE asylum seekers refuge - however, I feel they should be given 3 year temporary protection visas to see if the situation in their home country improves. We did this with the Kosovars and I don't see why we cannot do it with others.

[Mat]

8.

Interestingly enough, the UNHCR 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol also state that - 'Refugees are required to abide by the laws and regulations of their country of asylum and respect measures taken for the maintenance of public order.'

I guess that the refugee advocacy groups have forgotten to mention that particular legal requirement whilst they're drumming up their clients on how to circumvent the system. Any troublemakers (rioting, arson, destruction of property, acts of violence against other detainees, etc) should immediately and lawfully be refused entry and removed - that should get the message across and calm things down. They sure as hell shouldn't have their claim expedited and be set loose on the citizenry.

I think that the Coalition has the right idea - lob from Indonesia without documents and automatically be held to be acting in bad faith. It doesn't matter what spin the bleeding hearts put on it - you cannot enter Indonesia without travel documents. Destroying those documents en route to Australia shows the individual is attempting to conceal his identity, his country of birth, or both.

Like Bluebell, I don't have an issue with genuine refugees. I do have an issue with allowing country-shopping illegals entry so that they can make a beeline to the local CentreLink office. We don't need to import welfare recipients - we produce enough domestically.

Cue the morally indignant Left.....

[Tim]

9.

We didn't do it to the Albanians, they went straight back of the line,

[Jack Tower]

10.

Nope. The Press Council held this policy position - not to call asylum seekers "illegal immigrants" because they are not breaking the law - as early as February 2007.

I was working at a newspaper then, so I remember it quite well. I also recall that John Howard was Prime Minister at the time.

[Garry Nosworthy]

11.

JT, I stand corrected but if I am forced to not perceive or call them illegal I will take it with a grain of salt and it's the same dosage I take when the government tries to force the AGW arguement down my throat.

[Victoria Martin]

12.

Given that the condition of those in refugee camps is totally beyond the scope of an asylum seeker's sphere of influence, I fail to see how they can be held in any way responsible.

Given that under the refugee convention the obligation is towards those who arrive seeking asylum, and there is NO obligation towards those in the camps I fail to see how the needs of those in the camps vitiates the obligation to those arriving on our shores.

But mostly I do not see how a decision made by our government to attempt to "link" the two categories of refugees should result in OUR inflicting demonstrable harm on those who have a right to cross borders seeking asylum. Neither the manner of their arrival nor the very real suffering of others indemnifies or justifies the torture. I maintain that any system that is proven to result in permanent mental illness to a staggering 89% of its victims reaches the level of mental torture. having visited the interment camps a great many times over a decade I challenge those bleating about asylum seekers to justify the harm we do. This harm is done in a deliberate calculated way and in the full knowledge of its consequences.

[Mat]

13.

Thanks for joining the conversation Victoria. Are you seriously suggesting that once a person is in a refugee camp, that they are no longer responsible for their own actions? Let's be clear on this - my point was that the perpetrators are the ones to be removed, not the victims. Australian law doesn't punish the victims of a criminal offence - you're getting confused with Sharia law.

Secondly, as persons in a refugee camp are still seeking asylum, it would be reasonable to expect that their obligations under the convention still hold. Certainly, the country of asylum obligations still remain. Again, I believe that your interpretation is incorrect.

Next - what two categories of refugees are you speaking of? Is this an acknowledgement that their are non-genuine persons seeking to circumvent Australian law - the very same laws incidentally that allow for the detention of unauthorised arrivals? It's strange that advocacy groups don't mention two categories, perhaps you can share your thoughts as to the reason why.

Lastly - 89% of it's 'victims' have enduring mental illness from their internment? Really - not from the conditions that they've fled? These are desperate people fleeing persecution, physical harm and even death (according to their unsubstantiated claims) yet somehow being held in safe conditions where they are looked after better than the majority of elderly Australians is causing them severe and permanent mental scarring? Come on -pull the other one. More statistics being quoted without a factual basis. Show me an unbiased study - not some pseudo study paid for by advocacy groups designed to arrive at a pre-determined result.

I do agree with you about the callousness of the current government's border protection policies - they have created the factors that are causing the problem. A return to Howard's policies (TPV's, offshore processing) would bring an abrupt end to this. Bring on the next election so that the Coalition can fix the problem.

[Henry Innis]

14.

Just thought I'd respond to Jack's comment quickly (I am travelling at the moment so have limited internet access).

Jack, whilst you are right in terms of the number of people claiming asylum on Australian shores, what you forget is the Australian government classes both those claiming from a refugee camp (even if they did not directly apply for Australia which is often the case) and those actually claiming Asylum in Australia as the same. This poses obvious problems when the cap is reached and then we say 'oh but not everyone actually claimed'.

The mechanisms for refugee processing and delivery can be found at the Department of Immigration reports here: http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2010-11/html/overview/outcome-program-structure.htm .

Cheers,

Henry

[Victoria Martin]

15.

there is a body of evidence that examines the results of mandatory detention upon mental health. That evidence has been in the public domain for close to a decade and more recent research continues to confirm the conclusions of earlier examinations. Mandatory detention causes mental illness in previously healthy persons. The recent Senate Committee report on Immigration detention was also very clear on the evidence: Upon arrival the rates of mental illness of asylum seekers coming by boat is indeed a few percentage points higher then the Australian population & this does reflect the degree of trauma people may have suffered or been exposed to. Certainly some of the people I know who have arrived with shrapnel injuries, torture survivors and some of the amputees we have supported struggle with PTSD. After a year or longer in detention, however the Joint Senate Committee accepted the evidence was incontrovertible that a staggering 89% of those so detained had developed a mental illness. Those accepted into the Australian community in less time (3-6month for example) showed little increase in mental deterioration. Those of us who visit regularly witness first hand the deterioration: actually so do the Serco guards. Many Serco officers testified that they could see clear changes in people when they returned to the centers after a few weeks off duty. The report, which I hav read in it's entirety (some 500+ pages) makes for very sobering reading. I would suggest that anyone who cannot comprehend the reasons for this mental damage has a poor appreciation of the importance of liberty and freedom from unjustified incarceration.

[Victoria Martin]

16.

? "Are you seriously suggesting that once a person is in a refugee camp, that they are no longer responsible for their own actions? Let's be clear on this - my point was that the perpetrators are the ones to be removed, not the victims. "

I have absolutely no idea where you got this or what you intend by it????my initial comments I thought were quite clear. Asylum seekers arriving by boat have no culpability in the plight of those who are in refugee camps. There is no link between the groups and indeed even logically they are different source countries generally. Any purported link is entirely artificial, its no different then trying to claim that every person in an emergency department there with a heart attack takes the place of a person in a car accident. Australia, under the refugee convention, actually has NO obligation to those in the camps at all. Our acceptance of people from the camps is voluntary. (we may indeed have a moral obligation, but we do not have a legal one). We are bound legally under the convention to offer protection to those who cross boarders and seek asylum on our shores. That is the ONLY group that the convention binds us to accept. Technically those in the UNHCR camps already have protection, it is resettlement they need. The world does a shit job finding resettlement, I think we all agree on that. Those still crossing borders seeking asylum have neither protection nor resettlement. They seek both. By definition a refugee must cross borders. You MUST be outside country of origin to seek refugee status.

[Victoria Martin]

17.

"yet somehow being held in safe conditions where they are looked after better than the majority of elderly Australians is causing them severe and permanent mental scarring?"

I have visited most of the internment camps in Australia. Not only is this a disgusting fallacy, but again it shows an extraordinarily poor understanding of the importance of liberty. The daily indignities of detention, being called by number not by name, having untrained security officers shoving you around regularly and dictating every aspect of daily living, not to mention the continual threat of physical violence by guards, which still largely go unpunished even when we have clear evidence, all this contributes to the mental deterioration. You may not want to believe it: but we torture people. That is exactly what mandatory detention IS: mental torture that results in permanent psychiatric damage to almost everyone subjected to it. Horrific. Vicious. Unnecessary. Evil.

[Victoria Martin]

18.

so IF you really give a damn about the folks in the camps do what I do: continually demand that the government fill the current quota that has vacancies!

And then increase it

and then stop artificially connecting two needy groups of people that have absolutely no connection to each other

[Mack Allen]

19.

Lets get to the point.

Who missed out on a refugee place because of a boat arrival? Andrew Bolt is happy to ask the left to NAME members of the 'stolen generation', and I'm quite happy to ask Henry (or anyone else) to NAME someone who missed out because of a boat arrival. If a NAME is too hard I'd be happy for a description of refugee camp location, country of origin, reason for asylum claim and date rejected.

It is my strong suspicion that this in fact HAS NOT HAPPENED. In which case, this entire piece is based on a furphy.

[Henry Innis]

20.

Can't say I've ever been to a refugee camp as of yet, Mack. But you only have to read Dept. of Immigration documents to see it happens (feel free to check the source I posted above).

[Mack Allen]

21.

It saddens me that Victoria needs to remind people here of the fundamental importance of liberty.

[Mack Allen]

22.

Thanks for the straw man Henry, you don't need to have gone to a refugee camp to meet the challenge, you just need relevant information. And relevant information is thing we still don't have. It certainly isn't in that link above.

When were people in refugee camps denied refugee status because of boat arrivals? How many people? Where were they from?

This is the entire basis for your argument and vague offerings of 'check out the link above' simply don't cut it. I'm not being unreasonable to say 'make your case with facts or withdraw your argument'. If you are going to say the thing you don't like about boaties is that they take places from other refugees, you really need to provide strong evidence that this actually happens.

YOU need to provide the evidence, not tell us to go and find it ourselves. It is fundamental to your whole argument.

[Andrew]

23.

I see a different reason why so many Australians, and particularly liberal voters are so inhospitable to refugees arriving (entirely legally) by boat. It's racism.

As to your assertion that managing to get here means these people are wealthy, consider what a person of average wealth here could raise if their life depended on it. Sell the house. Sell the farm or business if you've got one. Quite a lot of help from friends and family. Certainly there are some who couldn't do it, but the average Australian could probably come up with a few hundred thousand if their livs depended on it.

I imagine that Afghani incomes might be 20 or 30 times lower than ours, but that the price of an international trip still sounds quite possible to me, without it being a sign of uncommon wealth.

[Shelley]

24.

Just wondering how your ancestors arrived here Henry? Was it fair? Did they take the place of others more "worthy"? Were they immigrants, convicts, officers,gentlemen?

How long would you be willing to wait in a camp? Six, seven, twelve years? Longer?

Just a few things for you to think about.

[John Mc]

25.

I see a different reason why so many Australians, and particularly liberal voters are so inhospitable to refugees arriving (entirely legally) by boat. It's racism.

Are you saying everyone who arrives unlawfully by boat is a refugee? Because history would say you are completely wrong. Maybe Australian's don't like people coming illegally to their country.

[Shayne O]

26.

This whole argument collapses if the "someone misses out" part is shown to be untrue.

Considering we havent filled our quota in decades, nobody is missing out.

Fail.

[Shayne O]

27.

Gary we are havinh a serious discussion here, not making things up. It is apt you compare "being forced to say they are not illegal" with "AGW", because I'm left to question your relationship with reality here. Nobody is 'forcing' you to say they are not illegal, however illegal has a specific definition, and categorically it is not against the law to come here by boat with the intention of applying for a refugee visa when you get here. Repeatedly the courts have upheld this, and it is part of the international law for which we are signatory. Objectively it is not illegal.

Sort of like how the absolute vast perponderance of evidence supports anthopomorphic climate change. But hey, lets all get angry about an invented vast left wing conspiracy where scientists uh decide to lie about the air for some reason nobody has been able to quite explain, but some how has managed to make hundreds of thousands of scientists all hide in rooms to conspire and scheme without ever being caught SOME HOW.

Reality is not a matter of opinion Garry.

[Mack Allen]

28.

Thank you Shayne, for answering the question I have been asking.

[Andrew]

29.

It's still about racism, even when you delete the comments.

[Andrew]

30.

Absolutely not. If someone arrives as a refugee, by boat or otherwise, then they have not arrived unlawfully. Your allegation of criminality is libel, though I expect those accused are in too precarious a position to be likely to pursue you in the courts.

People like you have been running an extensive campaign of such libel to convince the public that refugees are acting illegally, and you have convinced quite a lot of people, but that doesn't make it true. Read that press council ruling again.

[John Mc]

31.

Absolutely not. If someone arrives as a refugee, by boat or otherwise, then they have not arrived unlawfully. Your allegation of criminality is libel, though I expect those accused are in too precarious a position to be likely to pursue you in the courts.

Then why don't you try and do it for them, you piece of leftist crap.

I notice you conveniently worked your way around the question, so I'll ask it again. Does everyone who arrives here against the normal rules for entering Australia by boat, turn out to be a refugee or a valid asylum seeker, or a person with any legitimate reason to enter the way they did?

How hard is it?

[Andrew]

32.

I retract that deletion comment. It was a mistake born of squinting at the page through a mobile phone interface.

[bluebell]

33.

Asylum arrivals who DELIBERATELY destroy their documents deserve to be detained until there can be proof of identity. They are told by people smugglers to do this. They destroy their documents, but not their mobile phones....go figure.

[Peter]

34.

Their mobile phones work here in Australia? wow, they must be on good plans......

[bluebell]

35.

Care to comment smarty......and it happens on a regular basis!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1263103/Gday-mate-lift-Cheeky-asylum-seekers-phone-Australian-police-boat-ask-taken-ashore.html

[Peter]

36.

I noticed you were defending religion on another thread. Assuming here you're a Christian of some sort: wasn't Jesus a refugee?

[bluebell]

37.

Jesus was born into a family of internal refugees. His mother had to seek refuge, fleeing Herod's nasty dictatorship. It's uncertain whether she or her husband used the services of people smugglers to get her to safety... :-)

[bluebell]

38.

There are two, quite different gospel stories of the birth of Jesus.

In Luke's Gospel, Joseph and Mary came from Nazareth to Bethlehem to take part in a census. Jesus was born in Bethlehem and, a few days later, the family travelled to Jerusalem for the Temple ritual, without any apparent concern regarding King Herod. They then returned peacefully to Nazareth. At no time in this account, was Jesus ever in any danger from Herod.

In Matthew's Gospel, Bethlehem appears to be the home town of Joseph and Mary. After the birth of Jesus, King Herod sought to have him killed, so the young family fled from Bethlehem to safety in Egypt. After the death of Herod, they began to return to Bethlehem, but being warned in a dream, turned aside and travelled to a new home in Nazareth.

[bluebell]

39.

AFGHAN people smugglers are offering money-back guarantees on getting to Australia and providing step-by-step instructions to their clients on how to dupe authorities when they arrive.

The smuggling trade has increasingly moved from Pakistan to Afghanistan as smugglers seek to cash in on the huge demand from people wanting to leave the country ahead of the withdrawal of most foreign forces by 2015.

"If someone has the money, then they are leaving. But don't worry, Australia is easy if you follow my advice," a Kabul-based smuggler told The Sunday Mail.

"I have three people going to Australia this week and I guarantee 100 per cent they will make it. You will get your money back if you don't get in," he said. The smuggler's clients are almost always ethnic Hazara, a tribe that suffered persecution under the Taliban. They pay up to $14,000 to a broker in Kabul who holds the money until they reach Australia.

The smuggler's confidence comes from the dozens of customers for whom he has supplied fake documents and from tricks learnt in refugee-processing camps.

For between $300 and $1500 clients can get a made-to-order letter purportedly from the Taliban, which carries the insignia of the hardline Islamist movement and threatens violence if they don't leave their village.

The Sunday Mail was able to buy one of the letters from a smuggler who runs his business on the eastern Afghan border with Pakistan, after having requested it be written to maximise the chances of being accepted.

The letter, which is headed with the name of fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar, and signed by the military commander of Ghazni Province, warned the recipient to surrender to the Taliban within 24 hours for informing to the US military.

"If you don't do that, at night we will come to your house and bring you out of your house and kill you then you can't complain," the letter reads.

A forger in Kabul, who quoted $1500, advised letters would help but were not necessary.

The three smugglers The Sunday Mail spoke to said they warned their clients about the danger of going to Australia by boat but their clients all remained unperturbed by the risks.

So the message is this:
Hah hah hah Aussie SUCKERS!!

[G.Pell]

40.

There but for the grace of God go you bluebell.

[bluebell]

41.

Destroying your documentation and lying thru your teeth doesn't help their cause. Besides, I have far far more sympathy for refugees sitting in stinking camps patiently waiting their turn to be accepted by a host nation. It's called the UNHCR program and most Australians fully back this program because:

They have been checked and deemed as genuine refugees. They have done the right thing and gone thru legal legitimate channels.

I am fresh out of charity for those that usurp the process by using criminal networks and corrupt officials. Don't like it? Too damned bad! We cannot save everybody - if we allowed open borders with no limits how long do you think we would last as a sovereign nation.

[stu]

42.

Her Policy, Her watch, Her chance to fix it!
http://youtu.be/IfafL0CMpC0

[Anton]

43.

There is of course an alternative refugee and immigrant intake policy:

Auction off all places as in bond auctions. The UN, people smugglers, refugee advocates, imigration agents and even businesses can bid for as many places they like. That way Australia keeps the money and the auction winners will defend their allocation against pirates. No more noisy voices and lobbyists, everyone puts their money where their mouth is.

The free market alternative.

[Grantley]

44.

Would that stop them Anton ? I think all that would happen is that another group of wealthier "refugees" would emerge to gobble up that quota and the trade would continue un-abated.

Like it or not we have to have an orderly immigration system...to abandon that is to forfeit our sovereignity as a nation...and that is worth defending is it not ?

Supporters of illegal immigration can gloss over the numbers as much as they like but they can not escape the fact that the more illegals that get through, the more will come...and we can not take all 12 million. It wasnt long ago that some here were pooh - poohing 1,000 as an irrelevant number....now the same people dismiss 10,000 with a flick of the hand. So, again I ask the question....how many? 50,000? 100,000? 500,000? 1 million ?.....where do you want to draw the line? Because ultimately, draw the line we have to.

I predict that if this is left to continue un abated that 'we' will have to make tough budget decisions in the near future (post mining boom) as our social welfare bill spirals out of control to feed and house our illegal population.

[Anton]

45.

A fixed number of places go to auction every year.

The bleeding hearts cannot bid without money, so the number of useless illegal immigrants will be limited to the extent the general public is willing to fund the "refugee advocates" and their fellow travellers.

Businesses can bid for possible employees, to the extent they cannot fill the places locally (which would be cheaper).

Immigration agents could bid to the extent they have prospective clients. And these places would get awarded to those most capable of contributing to our society.

Yes, I think it could work. "Unauthorised boat arrivals" would all be illegal, and prosecuted by those who have actually paid for an immigration quota. A bit like broadcast spectrum and government bonds.

We are a soverign nation, the UN should piss off, go and have another useless talkfest (don't bother sending us a bill please)

[Andrew McN]

46.

I can't sue you for libel, because I'm not the agrieved party. Believe me, I've thought about it.

If I take your question literally, then NONE of those arriving contrary to the normal rules are refugees. The arrival of refugees unannounced, by boat, without visas, etc is entirely legal, and fully sanctioned by the normal rules.

I do not accept the manner of your question, which you have repeated in different words, again implying that refugees arriving by boat are doing so illegally, or outside of whatever else you imagine to be the "normal rules", so I'm not going to gloss over that and answer as though that were a reasonable assertion.

Are there people who arrive by boat without visas, and without intent to apply for asylum? I presume so. We don't hear much about them, except for the "people smugglers". But really, what does that have to do with the reasons why biggoted shits like yourself are so focussed on the arrivals by boat? Why not pour your bile on all those british backpackers who overstay their visas, and often do not return at all. Obviously these people are much less in need, and there are many more of them.

Would you even deny that this difference in your attitude is because you are more comfortable with their skin color, and identify with them as more like yourself?

[John Mc]

47.

I can't sue you for libel, because I'm not the agrieved party. Believe me, I've thought about it.

Another cop out, wus-boy. I said why don't you help them sue me (and you know it). You're just trying to avoid admitting you've got nothing (again).

I do not accept the manner of your question, which you have repeated in different words, again implying that refugees arriving by boat are doing so illegally,

You're avoiding the question because you know answering it will make you look like a fool. It's an elementary question fundamental to the whole debate. If you won't answer it you're avoiding the issue at hand, can't be taken seriously and she be treated as dishonest and self-serving.

I'll ask it again: does everyone who arrives here by boat claiming refugee status turn out to be a refugee, or are many of them falsely claiming refugee status to circumvent the normal rules of entry to this country?

Would you even deny that this difference in your attitude is because you are more comfortable with their skin color, and identify with them as more like yourself?

You're making assumptions to justify what you want to believe (that all Australians are racist and you're morally superior just like you've always secretly known). People rationally don't care about backpackers who overstay their visas as much because of about a million sensible reasons:
- they've had security and health checks when they entered the country,
- they're not going to get Australian welfare or otherwise cost the taxpayer,
- even if we do nothing they'll probably eventually leave without a fuss,
- the risk of them doing harm to themselves on arrival in a manner which requires us to intervene is next to nil,
- it's unlikely that we'll have to repatriate them at public expense,
- because they arrived documented and by formal channels we can work with the authorities of their own countries if we need to

etc, etc, etc. And of course there's the big one that you don't want to address:

- a backpacker who has overstayed their visa isn't making a serious and significant claim about their status that when tested will more than likely prove to be false.

Do you have a motivation for making these allegations beyond trying to feel smugly superior within yourself? Don't you believe Australians should have sovereignty over their own country?

[kraka]

48.

well JMc, if that doesn't finish off Andy defending the indefensible nothing will.

[John Mc]

49.

Kraka, I think it's more like nothing will. Losers like that don't accept reason. These people won't stop preaching their crap until Australia has the social dysfunction of the UK or France, and an economic condition like Greece. Hopefully we can keep shutting them down slowly with the next few elections, and a few Gina Reinharts and Clive Palmers can use their clout to restore some balance to an out of control government.

[budgie smuggler]

50.

" Clive Palmers can use their clout.."
Sounds like Clive nearly clouted Abbott a couple of days ago.

[Anton]

51.

If only the Libs could learn the art of subtle trade union communication:

like leaving a shovel outside a rats front door.

Class is everything

[kraka]

52.

ouch-well said Anton. As usual BS bought a knife to a gun fight

[Anton]

53.

Hope the knife was low carbon steel

[budgie smuggler]

54.

You blokes are a hoot. You should do standup together.
The anton and kraka show.
Just saw Clive defending Peter Slipper on 7.30 report. Looking like he may have been set up.

[Anton]

55.

You have become quite a Clive fan. Are you going to help him knock off the world's greatest treasurer at the next election?

[kraka]

56.

poor budgie, on the wrong side of all the big debates. Points awarded for at least having the courage (stupidity?)to keep outing himself as an irrelevant know all with no grasp of facts. But then again budgie, we know you are just a troll and its the compassionate conservative is us both that we just keep feeding you so you can feel relevant. Just remember,when abbott gets in due the incompetence of the left and the smarts of the majority, and you feel like there is nowhere to go, your mum still thinks your freaking special.

[budgie smuggler]

57.

Wrong side of debates ? Are you ALWAYS right kraka?
If Slipper HAS been set up , with the knowledge of a certain person with his eye's on Slipper's seat, will an apology appear here ?

[kraka]

58.

I didn't say that-i said you are on the wrong side of all the main debates (global warming scare, boat people, the ALP etc etc).
And no you wont see an apology because it doesn't matter who said what-if he is guilty for making unwanted sexual advances he is guilty of making unwanted sexual advances. Funny how with Thompson you all wanted it left to the courts and accuse conservatives of wanting to be judge and jury but now......pot kettle black anyone?
You are just repeating unsubstantiated drivel from some left wing troll who you happen to agree with.
And seriously the fact that all you have or want to talk about is periphial garbage while this left wing coalition of incompetent fools taxes the golden goose,drives down our competitiveness for absolutely ZERO environmental gain,puts sugar on the table to entice people onto the open seas, builds school halls that are not needed half the size and twice the price that private schools can,borrows $100M dollars a day to pay back debt it cant afford and still has the temerity to claim fiscal responsibility on the back of Costello's surplus.
BS your beloved ALP/Green Coalition is a joke and they will be out of power for a long long time while, once again, the conservative free marketeers get us back on track.The problem is, much like many of their uni going supporters, none of them have ever had a real job or been accountable to anyone-they are fkn hopeless, and no amount of semantics or diversion from trolls like you will ever hide that fact-EVER.History will record this government as the worst in history-and you support them through thick and thin-I think that is what is really bugging you.

[John Mc]

59.

History will record this government as the worst in history-and you support them through thick and thin-I think that is what is really bugging you.

True. The Rudd/Gillard government will end up assessed by posterity in the bottom quarter of the worst Australian governments ever.

That's after they get absolutely demolished in about a year in what could potentially be a record loss. This government could certainly leave its mark on history as the government the Australian people wished they could forget!!

[budgie smuggler]

60.

What will you blokes do once Tony is running the show? Will this site become redundant ? You'll have nothing to winge about. We'll be living in nirvana. Woo hoo. I can't wait.

[Grantley]

61.

back to the OT....isn't it just lovely how the alp, who came to govt with boat arrivals you could count on one hand in the year prior to their election and 6 people in detention (according to the ABC)....now want to "re-open" negotiations with the Opposition on stopping the crisis that they (the alp) have created all by themselves.

I would have thought it was a pretty simple solution....reset all the policies to prior 2007 and work from there. IF that doesnt work, then lets by all means talk, but unless that first move is made any 'talks' will be futile.

[Anton]

62.

Why do you say that?

Tony looks to be a good man, but not sure he reaches the standard set by Campbell Newman. He needs to shift on many issues:

>Paid maternity leave
>Renewable energy targets
>Reintroducing Workchoices
>Defunding the arts
>defunding university places in social sciences, liberal arts and gender studies

Plenty still to do

[Anton]

63.

and another sinking today.

[kraka]

64.

well at least you will be able to complain about a competent government instead of trying to defend an incompetent one.

[kraka]

65.

at least they have started by promising to remove the global warming frauds from the beauracracy. Mother Gaia will be happy-action instead of talk at last.

[Anton]

66.

I don't think Tony has anything to lose by reversing the scam.

The squealers would never vote for him even if he promised to add lentils to their dole payments. The middle class, with mortgages, power bills and rates to pay would swing his way.

[kraka]

67.

I always felt John Howard lost a lot of votes by not standing his ground on the AGW fraud-he knew it was a fraud and had called himself a climate realist. He counted on the 50% of the population with more than half a brain knowing that his caveat of only introducing any ETS if the rest of the world agreed meant he would never have to. In the end he was a conviction politician who didn't stand on his conviction in this matter. It's no consolation he was proved right and that AGW was indeed a fraud.

[pk]

68.

>"He needs to shift on many issues:

Hey Anton- you forgot revoking the vote for women, because after all it's uppity women feminists who have caused an increase domestic violence right?

[Anton]

69.

No, it is women that don't listen that cause domestic violence.

[Anton]

70.

Hope Tony learns from this

[pk]

71.

Charming Anton. I gather you are not in a relationship with a woman (other than perhaps your poor mother) and do not have daughters, such a wise and humorous person you strive to come across as yet clearly fail to be on every level.

[Zaphod]

72.

"No, it is women that don't listen that cause domestic violence."

Now get in that kitchen, and make me some PIE!

[kraka]

73.

can you please link to where tony abbott ever indicated he wanted to revoke the vote for women-or are you really just making it up out of hatred.I am unaware of where Tony Abbott is on the record as saying uppity feminists are causing an increase in domestice violence. Is this more lies substantiated in your mind by an idiot journalist or is he on tape saying it-please tell me you have proof of yet another attempt at portraying how sophisticated and intelligent you re.

[bluebell]

74.

Another day, another boat....and now we find that there is evidence that the boats are being DELIBERATELY disabled so that Australian authorities are forced to pick them up. How long do you think our social security & infrastructure will last at this rate? Already there are serious problems in Europe & the US to these illegal immigrants & refugees. Racial hatred is setting in inside Europe and the US is looking to build electrified fences and post armed guards in a desperate effort to halt the tide. Funny how they ONLY flee to the West. Our welfare is like a frigging magnet. Bleeding heart handwringing do-gooders are doing to be the death of the West. Indonesian authorities are laughing themselves hoarse in Jakarta...dumb Aussies!

[Anton]

75.

and you are still attracted to me. How sad

[kraka]

76.

She is only human Anton-poor girl

[John Mc]

77.

Left-wing beta males aren't appealing even to left-wing women! Where else was she going to go?! :)

[kraka]

78.

left wing beta males? ha! that is an oxymoron if ever i heard one.