Well, there's a difference between controlling immigration and creating a non-issue by lying about the situation (They're terrorists! They throw their children overboard!) and encouraging fear and racism in the populace in order to win an election.

Mandatory detention does nothing but pile more trauma onto people who have arguably suffered enough trauma in their lives already if they're willing to take their children and climb onto a leaky boat and sail hundreds of kilometres across the open sea. It's not a neccessary policy, and it violates the terms of several international treaties on human rights (the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, just as an example) which we've signed.

I don't object to controlling immigration, I just strongly (and usually with a lot more profanity) object to how my government is currently choosing to 'handle' the issue.

Edit:

Are you SURE you're un-American?

Uh, just let me check...well, the Prime Minister says we're not so much 'UN-American' as 'concurrently-American' and his plan to have the entire country moved (perhaps atop of Canada, considering their current shameless lack of pandering to their illustrious neighbour) so that this is factually true is coming along swimmingly.

I really think there is an argument to be made for open borders. A lot of the negative consequences of immigration is due to the controls and illegality. That is people who enter a country illegally can't take advantage of laws that give them labor rights such as minimum wage. On the high end, special visa programs such as the U.S. uses for many foreign tech workers holds wages down by tying them to one employer. If they quit that employer they are deported, which lets the U.S. employer pay substantially less than U.S. market.

I don't know if an open border policy would really be practical; but when you look at all the cost associated with border controls (and I don't mean the salaries of border control people), I'm not sure it is actually less practical.than what we have now.

Well, there's a difference between controlling immigration and creating a non-issue by lying about the situation (They're terrorists! They throw their children overboard!) and encouraging fear and racism in the populace in order to win an election.

Yes, this. I hate it - they oversimplify and misrepresent in a way that puts their stance on the issue in the best possible light. And I know that's your typical politician m.o., but that doesn't make it any less frustrating. I particularly hate how they misrepresent the opinions and motives of those who oppose them so that they don't actually have refute valid arguments. The vibe I usually get is that anyone who disagrees with their policies is some kind of ignorant lefty who is trying to be politically correct and trendy, so everything they say is automatically worthless and misinformed. They used this strategy when it came to the war. The few times they actually bothered to address the widespread, strident discontent they lumped all the anti-war campaigners together, accused them of giving comfort to terrorists and failing to support the Aussie soldiers and blah blah blah your opinions are very trendy and pretty but let the big boys handle the complicated problems, m'kay?

I know there's been some towns in New England that have gotten into the news recently for asking nicely "No more refugees, please!" but that's because a town of 10K's social services gets strained beyond belief when 500 Somali refugees go there over a three year period. If there somehow was an assigned number of 5 Somalis per Maine town it would be less of a strain, but of course refugees being human like anyone else, they would prefer to be able to continue personal and social ties with their own people.

California really did try to ban giving state social services to illegal immigrants, including medical care -- can you imagine the public heath nightmare that would have caused? Not to mention the whole moral bankruptcy issue.

Also, IME, the point about genuine refugees is that they are usually fairly attached to their homes, and tend to want to get back there asap. Economic migration is a whole other issue, but as a rule all immigrants are referred to in the same terms; and I don't know about other countries but here "asylum seeker" is virtually a term of abuse.

It's the racism (im- or explicit) which gets me though too. There's a huge movement of population within Europe all the time, but somehow that doesn't count.

[Or, to be shorter-winded, chaos isn't an inevitable consequence of immigration, and there are social gains as well as social costs.]

Yeah, but Betsy, you're talking about dusky people who believe in all kinds of outlandish deities and spice their food with saffron and equally subversive ingredients.

(also a bit bitter)

(perhaps atop of Canada, considering their current shameless lack of pandering to their illustrious neighbour)

A few months ago I read some right-wing Canadian pundit (Yes, we have them too. Sigh.) go on about how Canada has to choose whether it will follow the U.S. or follow Europe. He was very huffy about the need to keep the U.S. happy and very dismissive about liberal "European" values.

Digression 1: Why does Canada have to follow someone. Can't we be our own damned country?

Digression 2: Wasn't the U.S. originally designed to be the most liberal country on earth? What happened to that? Why do people assume that Europe is liberal, what with the rise of anti-Semitism and all?

Anyhow, shortly after that column was published, Canada's Supreme Court made its interesting gay marriage ruling. I am crossing my fingers for minimal backlash, both within and without Canada.

Yeah, but Betsy, you're talking about dusky people who believe in all kinds of outlandish deities and spice their food with saffron and equally subversive ingredients.

And they might even do... YOGA!

Geez, thanks, Megan. Now I don't know whether to laugh my ass off or build a bunker.

You can come and stay in my bunker if you like.

Would the bunker have room for the rest of the board? If so, I'm all for it-- I can't think of a group of people I'd rather ride out an apocalype with.

And in totally unrelated news, I've come across Aussie Rules football on Channel 98. This may be my new favorite sport, mostly because the uniforms are skimpy and the athletes are hot. Also, the referees wear funny hats.