Stopping the boats as a part of our national identity

If you ask stupid questions about people who do not exist in our law then you get a stupid answer, I am sick to death of pollsters and focus groups peddling lies and hate about refugees.

"65 per cent in total, believe that stronger measures should be taken to 'exclude illegal immigrants'" tells us quite a lot. Strong measures of course if it is illegal. But it is the same politicians who coined it as illegal to seek refuge who want to maintain the fear, the terror, so that they can do what they wish to pretend to protect us. No wonder as John suggests that we are fearful generally and wanting to conserve rather than move forward.

"But Australians overwhelmingly, 65 per cent in total, believe that stronger measures should be taken to 'exclude illegal immigrants'" tells us that the demonisation of asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat has succeeded. It follows that, if we treat these people even more harshly, the majority of Australians will still approve. What have we learnt from Germany of the 1930s?

"Citizenship, Immigration and Tradition'." 1. Citizenship: 'Our' tradition is that we kow-tow to an unelected British monarch who is privileged by right of birth to receive our grateful kow-towing regardless of any personal qualities or lack thereof. 2. Immigration: Those who established our traditions were immigrants who arrived by boat with no legal right or title to do so. Currently anyone who aspires to imitate them is demonised and subjected to deprivation of rights and to prolonged incarceration for choosing their particular life-style. 3.Tradition: This means conforming to 'our' choice of lifestyle. Any other tradition is dismissed as arbitrarily choosing a life-style incompatible with ours, and so of no value.

Looks like we've been conned. Nobody has "stopped the boats". They are still on the move, they just aren't coming here. Someone else's problem. Nothing to do with us and nothing for us to worry about. Problem solved, go back to sleep.

Thank goodness the first three commentators today were not in the Lindt Café in Sydney a couple of months ago. Had they been, however, I wonder if their comments today would be as blindly emotional as they are. I have no difficulty in seeing the horror experienced by those dear children and their families being executed in Northern Iraq by the barbarian Islamic State for no reason other than being Christian and would have no argument with anyone wishing to risk his all to save them. But in adopting Marilyn's emotional words, "I am sick to death of people falsely and deliberately claiming to be refugees and their focus groups peddling lies to gain entry to the benefits of this country.

I'd be happy to see stronger measures taken to exclude illegal immigrants, and I suppose I'd have said so if I'd been polled. However, I don't want stronger measures taken against asylum seekers, however they reach our shores. For them, I want more compassion, more humane treatment, and equal access to the 'legal' path to a successful visa application. It's about the language we use - and I do agree with Ian Fraser. The demonization campaign has succeeded magnificently, and it's largely by weaselly use of the language.

Surely the question regarding illegal immigrants is misleading. If I answer that question my answer will probably be yes. We had the same problem with the referendum on a republic. That's often the problem with surveys, the questions are often skewed because different people have different definitions of the words used. It's unfortunate and sometimes deliberate.

This is a most interesting piece, and timely, appearing a day after our Prime Minister endorsed Malaysia's and other countries' driving boatloads of desperate people away from their coasts. Mr Abbott unrepentantly promotes 'stopping the boats' as good policy, with utter disregard for human life. From the survey results cited here, it appears that the Government's lack of compassion is approved by a significant proportion of the public. That support is the result of the incessant labelling of the situation as simply criminal: evil 'people smugglers' enticing people onto dangerous boats; but this is a gross distortion. 'Smugglers' exist because people are fleeing unspeakable conditions. What is happening to Rohingyas, for example, is well-documented cruelty; they and other desperate people flee because they are prepared to risk all to escape the oppression and danger they are living with. That Australia is not only ignoring their plight, but championing the harsh responses of others is a cause for shame, for many of us. Surely we are better than this?

Our esteemed prime minister was probably catering to the 65 percent of Australians who think he should be harder on refugees when he encouraged other countries in the region to turn boats back. Maybe the idea is to let a couple of thousand Rohingyas die of thirst in their boats. That should teach the rest of them to be happy with being non-citizens with no rights in their own country. It should make the good rulers of Myanmar happy too.

I find the results interesting, but generally disappointing. I agree with previous comments about the incorrect language 'illegal immigrant' when referring to legal asylum seekers. In these volatile times, people are a bit fearful of losing the comforts they are so lucky to have in this country. But a lot of this fear is fuelled by media. I don't think we Australians are very different to many other countries. But we are very fortunate and sometimes a little selfish and insular.

What is most disconcerting about Professor Warhurst's findings is the bit about the exclusion of "illegal migrants". It is astounding that the notion that asylum seekers are "illegal" has seeped into the Australian psyche. Legality, or otherwise, does not occur in the annals of UNHCR when it comes to people fleeing from persecution and eventual deaths. In the early sixties, due to my ethnicity, I found myself technically stateless. I was a foreign student whose identity has been erased by the government of the country where I came from. And yet, though it was at the height of White Australia policy, this country gave me eventual refuge. I like to remember the compassion that I was offered when speaking of the kind of country Australia is. Not the one where 65% believe to "exclude illegal (sic) migrants".

I am appalled at the callousness of our government. They have stopped the boats coming here and now the rest of the world is copying us.When I was a child we were always being warned by the priests, brothers and nuns to keep away from bad companions. Australia has become a bad companion.

Yes Marilyn: those pesky opinion polls are a wretched nuisance aren’t they? Especially when they show how little support there is for your pro-asylum-seekers views. Damned inconvenient! Clearly those “pollsters and focus groups peddling lies and hate” have completely distorted the true feelings of Australians who really oppose Abbott’s turning back the boats measures. Either that or Australians are just a bunch of selfish racist xenophobes who care nothing for those escaping oppression and persecution. I mean they’ve been brainwashed by all those right-wing shock jocks, the evil Murdoch press, and that odious Tony Abbott and his minions with their horrid dog whistle politics haven’t they? But then maybe not. Just maybe most Australians have enough sense to see that turning the boats back has probably saved hundreds of lives by now, bearing in mind that 1200 people had drowned trying to get to Australia from 2008-13, including hundreds of children (some unaccompanied). Since Abbott stopped the boats the drownings have stopped. Maybe too most Australians have long realized that most of these so-called asylum seekers were simply queue-jumping economic migrants taking the places of genuine refugees and fugitives from persecution. But asylum-seeker operatives stubbornly refuse to face such facts. To acknowledge them would be to admit to their responsibility for backing a disastrous policy – one that has not only killed 1200 people, cost Australia $12 billion but has denied refuge to up to 50,000 truly needy people in Middle East refugee camps. Who’d ever want to take the blame for such a mess!!! .Better to remain in a state of denial I suppose.

Makes me angry how we get bogged down in our elitist and irrelevant nit-pcking about labelling asylum seeker, refugees, or economic migrants. If you'd met any of these people, especially Africans, you'd realise the economic conditions and government corruption makes political/economic one and the same. A case in point - the US would accept relatively well-off Cuban boat arrivals as refugees (because they're fleeing communism) but send back dirt poor, malnourished Haitian boat people.

Ah, Dennis Anonymous really believes that turning the boats equates to saving lives at sea. How can one argue with that kind of logic. Did the killing of 2 Australian drug smugglers equate to winning the war on drugs? Not the same, I hear you say, Dennis? In the words of a song, where do we begin with people like you Dennis Anonymous. ?

Yes Alex where do we begin? The obdurate .refusal of people such as yourself to accept the catastrophic consequences of pro asylum-seeker policies you so passionately support is truly difficult to understand. And what’s with the “Dennis Anonymous” tag you apply to me? What are you trying to imply?