On Sun, 25 Sep 2011, Mike Mitchell <m.mitch@exemail.com.au> wrote:
On 25/09/2011 12:01 PM, Jason White wrote:
According to ALP polling, a certain proportion (10%)? of voters are overtly xenophobic. A much larger proportion has xenophobic tendencies that can be exploited by the Coalition - these include people who voted for the ALP in the last election but who could switch their votes partly or entirely in response to this issue.
I'm not so sure that the Coalition attracts a more xenophobic follower than the ALP. Traditionally, including the Howard government, the Coalition, and its conservative predecessor, have adopted a more liberal approach to immigration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_howard It's worth reading John Howard's Wikipedia page. The first thing that stands out is his action to restrict gun ownership. It was controversial at the time but a significant majority of the population accepted that he did the right thing. Other politicians could take a lesson from this in regard to doing the right thing and then doing politics - it's a lesson that John forgot later in his term. Remember the "babies overboard" lies by John Howard? Hardly a "liberal" approach to immigration.
Although the driving force has not always been altruistic. A _terrific_ example of almost ALP xenophobia going on at the moment is the Qantas engineers industrial action. They have not said a word about the Qantas aircraft being maintained by Americans and British maintenance staff at other destinations but those "strange" Asian types!? I think they'd like to kill 'em. NOTE: I've worked for, Australian Air Express, a Qantas subsidiary and they really don't like anything to do with Singapore or its Airline.
Given that Rolls-Royce (based in the UK) is one of the major manufacturers and a significant portion of the heavy passenger jets are from Boeing (based in the US) it seems reasonable to expect that those countries have some skilled people to repair them. Airbus is based in France but has significant operations in the UK, Germany, and Spain. This seems to be further evidence that the UK is a good place to have heavy passenger jets serviced.
Then there is another small proportion (10%?) who favour more humane treatment of refugees
I really believe that almost all Australians support the humane treatment of refugees _BUT_ how on earth do we know that the people who arrive here under their own steam _ARE_ refugees?!
Well we can start by treating people humanely while determining if they are refugees. Make the "innocent until proven guilty" principle apply.
Also, refuge is a privilege not a right. We need to think in terms of ourselves seeking refuge outside Australia to understand that.
There are lots of international agreements about humane treatment of people which give them rights that have been violated by the Australian government.
To be totally clear on this point, I am strongly in favour of the rights of refugees and asylum seekers and opposed to any policy that would diminish those rights or exacerbate the suffering of people who are already vulnerable and who have lived with the experience, or at least the well-founded fear of persecution. I do not support either off-shore processing of claims or mandatory detention; and I don't vote for the Labor Party either.
Ditto on the humane treatment of refugees, but Australia should be selecting who is and who is not a refuge. Until they are deemed to be refugees they are here without visas.
Most people who are here without visas are treated humanely. All the people who attended the Catholic World Youth Day and didn't go home were here without visas and didn't get treated badly.
I believe we need to deter those taking advantage of Australia when they are without need of refuge.
I did vote Labor in the last election, and I'd like to take this opportunity to apologise.
You voted for the lesser of two evils. Voting for the Greens is the best thing to do, vote for good!
And as most proponents of "let 'em all in" seem to think that those who aren't are racist bastards, I strongly believe that immigration is vital to this country and I believe offering refuge on compassionate grounds is vital to our humanity and moral fibre.
Which is of course a good argument for an "innovent until proven guilty" approach.
The whole problem of undocumented arrivals is very complex and will take some time to resolve.
That "some time" should not be "some time in jail for children".
However, it is the governments job to do as the nation wishes.
No. We don't have a direct democracy. We have a representative democracy where we vote for representatives who are supposed to be better informed than us. Being better informed includes being aware of international agreements about human rights.
If the majority of Australians wanted the boats painted pink, no matter how stupid it may seem to the pollies, then they should be painted pink. I have a feeling this issue has also become an exercise by the Australian people of "we run this country, not the politicians". Something Australians seem to grasp far better than most others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 The US Civil Rights Act of 1964 is one significant example of controversial legislation passed without a referendum. That act resulted in the "half time change sides" in US politics where the Republican party is now the party of racism and the Democratic party is the liberal party (or rather the not so right-wing party). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederik_Willem_de_Klerk de Klerk didn't have a referendum before starting the process that led to voting rights for Black people in South Africa. I don't think that anyone believes that he would have won an election with only white voters on a platform of enfranchising the majority of the population. Having a representative Democracy and allowing politicians some freedom to vote with their conscience after elected has real benefits. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/