RS> And in fact you are just sticking emotive terms on policys you
RS> dont approve of. Hardly a rational discussion of the policys.

BM> Words like "bigot", "redneck",
"prejudiced" are a pretty
BM> accurate way to describe many of the people sounding off with
BM> the more extreme ways to run things - both here and in the US.

I think thats a fantasy as far as the specific one being discussed,
deciding they dont want to be paying in tax for government services
to illegal aliens. Its quite possible to say you dont think thats
what you want to see done with your tax dollars without being any
of those. In fact in some was we are more stringent ourselves,
putting rather more effort into kicking illegal aliens out of the
country so the question of paying for services to them doesnt arise.
Corse its much more practical for us to do that too, the numbers help.

And that US referendum got up, hard to claim its just bigots,
rednecks etc in that situation.

BM> Let's not think all the crazies are American.  You only have
BM> to follow the media "debate" around the country on aboriginal
BM> affairs to see that we have a few extremists of our own.

Yes, but you are comprehensively mangling the argument here. Yes,
bigots and rednecks are usually in favor of that sort of policy.
But that doesnt meant that everyone who thinks thats how things
should be done is automatically a bigot and a redneck. Thats just the
absolutely classic logic trap that just because cats do indeed usually
have tails, that doesnt mean that all animals with tails are cats.

In our case, with illegal immigrants, its a perfectly tenable position
to say that we have a formal immigration program, with criteria on who
gets admitted and who doesnt, and that if people choose to just try to
bypass that, that its reasonable to send them back from where they came,
if only because that tends to get the message thru to those where they
came from that attempting rocking up on the beach here wont work.

That doesnt make you automatically a bigot or a redneck.

BM> Rod, I am not accusing you of being bigoted or redneck,
BM> so don't take offence.

I wasnt assuming you were saying that, I just meant that the
USians who say choose to not have their tax dollars spent on
services to illegal immigrants are perfectly entitled to decide
thats what they want government policy to be, without them all
automatically just being rednecks and bigots.

You can even claim that it wont work, or that its undesirable
in other ways, but thats a different thing to just dismissing
that approach as utterly unthinkable, as you came close to doing.

BM> Many of those with extreme views have such closed and
BM> unpleasant minds that it is not possible to argue rationally
BM> with them. Their minds are already fixed by their prejudices.

Yes, no argument there, but its not just extremist either. Most
people dont actually consider any policy choice from the essentials
on every issue. Most people are generally coming from a particularly
outlook, say that some things are best done by government, or that
government manages to make a meal of much of what they try.

BM> You are damn right I don't approve of their "ratbag" ideas.

Yes, but the point I was making was that choosing to not have the
state pay for services to illegal aliens aint anything remotely
like a ratbag idea. We in fact dont normally provide government
services to illegal aliens ourselves, and got rather further,
kicking them out of the country whenever they are identified.

BM> Remember the West Australian politician who wants to keep
BM> illegal (read Asian) immigrants on a container ship offshore,
BM> "so the lawyers can't get to them"?  Classic ratbaggery - or
BM> maybe just cynical pandering to racists in his electorate
BM> !

I dont think its cynical, Graham is mad enough to believe it |-)

OTOH you can make a rational case for not letting the legals get
into the act on that stuff. If they arrive on the beach here they
are just automatically sent back, no exceptions. You only need to
be careful that say a legal immigrant doesnt get accidentally shipped
back because he and his family went out on a boat for the day.

Ditto for people who overstay on tourist visas. The only question
is whether they really did overstay the visa or not. No need for
swarms of legals to adequately ensure that the law is followed.

BM> Let me reiterate my earlier view:  There are plenty of ways
BM> to reduce government waste without resorting to extremism.

Yes, but there is more to it than waste too. Some people are saying
that we have a formal immigration program, if people choose to flout
that, they should just be sent back when caught. Its a perfectly tenable
position, you dont need to be an extremist to be in favor of that.

BM> Why waste yet more of our money beating up on a few helpless
BM> illegal immigrants when there are millions of legal citizens
BM> with their hands in the public till?

Essentially because the law doesnt work like that. You dont say that
its not worth worrying about shoplifters coz the cost isnt very high
compared with what the likes of Alan Bond can loot from the system.

BM> Let's beat up on the ratbags instead.  I would round them all up and
BM> send them off to some remote island - or container ship .  The
BM> secret police (which we desperately need) could do the job very
well. 

Down boy |-)

BM> The world has had more than enough of extreme solutions to social
BM> problems.

Yes, but having a formal immigration program and not allowing people to
do an end run around it aint an extreme solution. No one is suggesting
they should be sent to gas ovens. Well, not many anyway |-)

BM> Our society is one of the more tolerant around and this is a value
BM> we all need to work at strengthening, because it is under threat.

And letting people flout the law on illegal immigration aint likely
to assist in getting people to be more tolerant.

--- PQWK202