Good try but in the end we take 13,750 people each year - I think 6,000 are referred from UNHCR and the rest are sponsored applications. There are not enough places, that is why it is so hard to get a visa. Most are rejected. But if someone turns up we are obliged to take them and they become one of those places in our program. Hence the argument about queue-jumping. If you want to make it easier to apply then you have to offer more places, as we absolutely should, but even then it will not be enough and people will still be rejected, in spite of their need, so they will still try other methods for seeking safety. Unless the world deals with the millions of people seeking a safe home, boats and planes outside the minimal places offered by resettlement countries will still be the only way to find help for many people. Refugees identified by UNHCR in 2009, 15.2 million. Resettlement places now available to UNHCR, 80,000. 43 million people were displaced at end of 2009, the highest number since the 1990s. the developing world carries the largest burden in hosting refugees, what we really need to do is stop complained and take up our share of the burden.

Legal Eagle's article makes a few interesting points but he does not take the arguement to its logical conclusion.
At the moment legal immigration is running at about 1 per cent of population which is as high or higher per-capita than it was in the 1950s and, of course, much larger in absolute terms. It works out to somewhere around 200,000 a year.
All of the illegial immigrants ever held in camps since the start of the Howard Government would add up to just a fraction of one year's worth of present legal immigration.
But we can't just simply wave them in. 'Okay, if you get here fair enough.'If we did that then we would very quickly be innundated with refugees. More than a few lives would be lost as they put to sea in anything to make the crossing.
Further, the issue of illegial immigration is one of those known to swing marginal electorate voters. Gillard's givernment will somehow have to stem the flow of illegial immigrants - the much maligned policies of the Howard government did this - wihtout being seen to be like Howard. And be seen to be doing so, and quick.
Grand gesture is needed. Suggestions anyone?

Like most “weeks” for this that and the other, Refugee Week will be unknown and uncared about by most Australians. Particularly as most Australians are sick and tired of ‘refugees’ – mainly in the form of illegals smuggled into Australia by criminals and welcomed and escorted to Christmas Island by expensive RAN craft. Kevin Rudd’s demise was due to the problem with illegals in no small measure. There is nothing to say that Gillard is any more capable of dealing with the situation than Rudd was. It is hoped, though, that she will carry on with the proposed legislation which “may lead to humanitarian aid workers who assist asylum seekers getting in trouble.” It’s well past time that that fifth-column of people working against Australia’s interest was dealt with.

Most Australians would also be bemused to hear of the “enormous contribution refugees make to the nation” when so-called refugees are a mighty drain on Australia’s economy, costing millions to transport hither and yon because of the Labor government’s broken border protection promises and their total inability to stop the boats.

This anonymous author’s understanding that “… if you’re an asylum seeker who manages to get a toe on Australian soil, you’re much more likely to have reached barlee, but if you’re still outside our territory, your situation is much tougher” raises the gross unfairness of Australia’s incompetence which sees illegals queue-jumping over properly processed people who have been waiting for years in overseas camps to be taken in by a willing country. In Australia’s case, the number of bone fide refugees allowed in under the Convention is severely reduced by those arriving illegally, undocumented, and with dubious claims. In other countries, the only way that people are dealt with at all is if they actually reach the country illegally. There is no Australia-like agreement to take in any amount of UN-processed refugees in an orderly fashion.

.....

......

This lawyer has clearly spelt out for the ‘good’ people who want to pander to illegals the downright unfairness of their beliefs and the Australian Government’s lack of commitment to a fair go in encouraging illegal entry and people smugglers by ignoring their own laws.

Why were people “…knocked back when they applied from overseas…”? Because they were processed by the UN which, despite it’s many faults, have tougher criteria than Australia does. Why do you think that the illegals are going through other countries where UN stations exist to get to Australia? Because they know they would be knocked back by the UN because they don’t have a case. They know that silly, weak Australia accepts any yarn they hear from ‘desperate’ people, who are facing no more personal danger now than has been present in their countries for centuries.

Now is a good time to take advantage of the weakness of Western countries like Australia to get the sort of life they are too lazy and cowardly to fight for in their own country. They are here to bludge on what the Western world fought and died for long ago. They are content, too, to run away from home while Australian and coalition soldiers are killed where they bolted from.

We are not talking about post-WW2 refugees who were similar to ourselves, and who have helped build Australia for anyone chooses to turn up now; we are talking about people who have not contributed to their own countries, and who will certainly not contribute to ours, as the wet-Left insists they will.

Australia, in common with other Western countries, has surrendered its right to protect its borders and to decide who is allowed to come to Australia for fear of being called ‘racist’; for fear of the school- marmish and interfering entity ‘world opinion’, and the drivelling, self-hating and anti-Western white liberals who have too much influence for their numbers

It seems that border security should also include the ways the illegal immigrants would be able to obtain legal documents without proper procedure. Current system of records of personal information is designed as to conceal full name of the person. Owner of the identity does not know what in fact is recorded and that creates incidents where the person would be proceeded under alternate identity. Thus ‘clean’, verifiable identity would be crystallised and pack of documents produced. I have also read the cases where people buy birth certificates and other certificates – helps to start normal life without lengthily visa procedure or detention. False identity would use proper documents printed on government printers. That illegal immigration is not accounted for. While attention is switched to few hundreds of boat people a year etc, the area where impostors immediately come into all the benefits for Australian citizens via the most illegal way is difficult and seems cut out of attentions just because that might be concern of the design of the government recordkeeping system and most likely corruption.

The classification of an asylum seeker as a refugee is a greatly subjective process. In the end it often comes down to whether or not an asylum seeker's claims are to be believed, and in most cases without any real evidence.

The problem in assessing claims of asylum seekers is that it cannot be determined without doubt what has actually happened to them. It is standard practice for asylum seekers to destroy identity and travel documents prior to arrival and then claim refugee status, although such documents had been used for travel through other countries up until arrival at Australian immigration points.

All enquiries after the arrival of an asylum seeker involve assessments as to whether or not the story of persecution they present is believable. The immigration department can make inquiries offshore to test the story, but this is time consuming and expensive and will not always resolve the matter.

While the law says the onus of proof in a refugee status application is on the applicant, this has in practice evolved into applicants challenging the Australian Government to disprove their stories. As very few stories from remote war zones can be conclusively and individually disproved the asylum seekers get the benefit of the doubt and so gain refugee status.

The net result is that for many years every person getting on a boat to Australia with an intention to claim asylum has a prepared story that is an effective distillation of the stories of previously successful applicants. The story has to be moving enough to engage the 1951 Convention protection obligations, but at the same time vague enough to be uncheckable and unverifiable. The further an asylum seeker is from their home country, the more difficult it is to confirm the facts of their story.

The entire refugee assessment process is flawed by error and guesswork, which greatly works to the advantage of the refugee claimant, and results in abnormally high acceptance rates.

There are about 400m refugees that would fit more easily fit the requirements that the boat people do. Even if we allowed in 100 000 a year it would barely dent the problem.

The illegal entries are simply jumping the queue by people would would otherwise be unlikely ever to be approved.

legal eagle,
You really are quite naive, easy to see you are a student.

Those that apply for asylum overseas do not fare very well, about 20% success I think from memory.

Those that arrive here legally and apply for asylum fare about the same. Why? Because we have proof of where they come from and identity so we can send them back.

The success rate of those that enter illegally is between 92% and 97% mainly because we cannot prove their identity and allow them in.

That is also why the illegals are prepared much more than the air fare to the smugglers. They would not be allowed in the front door.

Yep same old rehashed arguments put forward by a bunch of immigrants against immigration, the irony of it all!

Those that whinge and whine (mainly cos they got no clue) about migrants (their very own folks) have a tendency to always deflect any criticism of their puerile points with counter accusations of - fearing being labeled racists, or fear of being singled out for criticism by the UNHCR, or are self hating anti-western/anti-whites, or just spinster prim and proper “school teachers” (dare I say it in creeping Seppoism, “schoolma’ams”) whom wield to much influence over society, or are anti-democratic, anti-capitalist lefty commie supporters, or are bleeding hearts.

On and on it goes ad-nauseam. I wonder if they were back in their native European homelands if they would also complain about the old eastern bloc white Slavic’s coming over?

Hey get a clue……this is Australia……..geographically located in the Asia/Pacific Region of the earth where Asian and Pacific peoples naturally live. You’re not in Europe any more Alice, try reading the Australian Gov’t’s facts on the subject:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf

Aaah Westralis the Muslim... who wants more of his own to come here ...right ?

Yeah....that'll be right, couldn't be further from the truth.

Baptised C of E actually! But it doesn't matter though does it? You'll find something in that to make into an enemy out of anyone regardless if it were Anglican, Catholic, Islamic or Aboriginal Australian belief. The greatest and noblest pleasure which men can have in this world is to discover new truths; and the next is to shake off old prejudices.

Westralis

Do you think it valid to discriminate between asylum seekers based upon where they are processed?

Do you think it ethical to give legal advantage to people who engage with criminals and undertake very dangerous voyages in unseaworthy vessels?

Do you think that a policy which discouraged people from engaging with criminals and undertaking dangerous voyages would be a better policy?

Extract: "...to qualify for the special humanitarian program visa (PDF 367KB), you have to have an Australian “proposer”, and you are more likely to succeed if you are a “split family”. "

See:

http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/offshore/how-propose.htm

- - - start extract- - - -

Proposing a Refugee visa applicant

A proposer is not required for a person to be considered for the grant of a Refugee visa. However, a proposer may support a Refugee visa application. This allows a more accurate assessment to be made of the applicant’s settlement prospects in Australia.

- - - end extract- - - -

Now read the application form [681.pdf]: Refugee and special humanitarian proposal :

http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/681.pdf

- - - - extract start - - - -

‘Information and orientation assistance’ means assisting
the entrant to access:
• Income support through Centrelink;
• Permanent housing;
• Medicare;
• Health services (eg. doctor, dentist and pharmacy);
• Employment services (eg. Job Network);
• Education and training services (eg. Adult Migrant
English Program, children’s schooling);
• Translating and interpreting services;
• Banking services;
• Childcare services; and
• Transport.
- - - - extract end - - - -

- - - - extract start - - - -
If you are eligible to propose, you will also need form 842
Application for an Offshore Humanitarian visa to be
completed by the visa applicant and submitted together with
this form.

- - - - extract end - - - -

Note forms for applicant and proposer need be submitted together.

Need more information on sponsor commitments - liabilities.

Is the issue money ?

Encourage people in community to match with and select applicants they are prepared to support.

IMHO exists a problem - government and organizational, within the filtering process which deters individuals from offering support.


Is purpose to reduce number arriving through private sponsor process ?

.

Good Westralis.. at least we have cleared that up.

You seem to have a CAT D9 chip on your shoulder about the church.. maybe you had a 'bad church experience' which has left you embittered?

THE GENUINE REFUGEE.
For Australia, would be a person fleeing persecution in Irian Jaya, though their first port of call would need to be PNG rather than Australia.
It could also be Chinese Christians fleeing Muslim persecution in Indonesia. (though Singapore might be closer)

THE FAKE REFUGEE. is one who has come from any other country 'through' Indonesia,Malaysia,PNG just to get to Australia.

It's only political intrigue which prevents the fake from the genuine from being so described and our authorities taking appropriate and swift action.

I, as one will see from my posts, have NO INTEREST IN HUMANITARIAN VISAS WHILE THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLE OF OUR COUNTRY LIVE IN 3RD WORLD CONDITIONS.

See, I spelt it out, quite clearly, let there be NO MISTAKE.

Until we are in a position where the citizens of our Country are ALL ABLE TO SAY THEY HAVE A CHANCE, I don't see that we are in a position to spend money on other Country's citizens. Regardless of their problems, we have our own citizens problems to deal with first.

Quite frankly, I propose a Moratorium on ALL REFUGEE IMMIGRATION until we can say we have successfully fixed ALL of the issues that exist here NOW.

Think that is hard? I don't, charity starts at home. Any illegal immigrant that makes it here should have equality with our ATSI communities, and be forced to live in the same. Perhaps that will focus world attention on the ACTUAL problem (in fact, I'm sure it will, the Refugee advocates couldn't help but draw the worlds attention to the deplorable living conditions in existence where their clients were being held).

Actually, that might be a plan... It would certainly ensure that wannabee refugees thought hard and long about setting sail from Indonesia. They'd be exchanging the dubious lifestyle they are in for a worse one, that might well stop illegal immigration, full stop.

On the plus side, the many millions spent on housing the refugees, on ensuring their needs are met, etc. would also benefit the remote communities where they are housed.

Let me make this plain, I do not see why anyone who is in this Country illegally should experience a life any better than that of the meanest of our communities. After all, why should non-citizens receive better than the least of our citizens? I cannot see a single, logical or worthwhile argument why they should, I'd be interested to see if anyone could even raise one.

Do you think it valid to discriminate between asylum seekers based upon where they are processed?
A) No.

Do you think it ethical to give legal advantage to people who engage with criminals and undertake very dangerous voyages in unseaworthy vessels?
A) No….However you take a very simplistic attitude towards the matter. I put it to you that should you be in fear of your life as well as that of your family would you not leave no stone unturned in the effort to remove yourself and family from those dire consequences? Would you not risk and sacrifice the very last of your family’s liquid assets for the tiny space on a rickety old junk for the short hop to Xmas Island, Ashmore Reef or better still the shores of Western Australia.

Do you think that a policy which discouraged people from engaging with criminals and undertaking dangerous voyages would be a better policy?
A) Absolutely! And this is exactly what the Australian Gov’t and NGO’s are doing by despatching Officers to the camps to accelerate the paperwork process. This is no easy task and comes with its own risks to life one of whom was a mate of mine that was killed in an aircraft crash. Not all of him was located, the Aussie diplomatic bags full of refugee family files that he had processed in the camps, strewn all over a field. You think this is something new that you have discovered well it is not new, that was over twenty years ago that my mate died. These processes have been going for twenty plus years before him, stretching to well before and after WW1, WW2 when Australia took hundreds of thousands of refugees from Europe. The problem is well known, acknowledged and addressed at best possible practise levels but there will always be some whom in dire fear and in a mad panic destroy their papers and hop on a junk in a last ditch effort for freedom and peaceful existence. Israel likes to proclaim that “We are a light unto the nations” but sometimes I wonder!

Shorter Boaz:

THE GENUINE REFUGEE.
Anybody who fits the definition of the UN Convention and is not a Muslim.

THE FAKE REFUGEE.
Anybody who fits the definition of the UN Convention and is a Muslim.

Other than that, same old, same old from the haters. We could easily take double or triple our current intake of refugees and still reduce net immigration by axing the so-called 'skilled' migration program.

The comparison with the appalling health and social conditions of many Aboriginal Australians is a red herring that has nothing whatsoever to do with our humanitarian obligations under the UN Convention on Refugees. The only thing they have in common is that Aborigines and refugees are used as political footballs by unscrupulous politicians to attract votes from the lowest common denominator of the electorate.

I'd like to respond to Fernando, who pointed out that there are 15.2 million refugees world-wide according to the UNHCR and yet only 80,000 resettlement places available. I'm also responding to Shadow Minister who had a similar concern.
The important missing figure is 780,000 - that's the number of people whom the UNHCR has declared in need of resettlement. You see, not all refugees need resettlement - most don't, according to the UNHCR.
The 80,000 figure is pathetically small - most are taken in by the USA. The nine countries that have planned resettlement programs could easily double their annual intake, just for starters. Other countries that are well-off and signatories to the UN Convention could also establish resettlement programs.
Ultimately, though, like it or not, the question of 'open borders' will have to be confronted head on.

Westralis

I dont think I am doing anything other than stating the obvious, and I cannot see how current policy satisfies those simple principles of equal treatment of human beings, protecting human life, and not providing an opportunity for criminals.

You think my attitude simplistic, yet why would you attempt a dangerous voyage and engage the service of criminals were it not to your advantage? If there was equal treatment of asylum seekers, there would be no reason to endanger yourself or give money to criminals as there would be no advantage to be gained.

Fester, I have already stated in my previous answer the advantage to be gained is the preservation of life, specifically yours and your family’s. Perhaps your failure to comprehend my previous answer to your repeated question above is that your life or that of your family’s has never been placed in real jeopardy. Had your family been placed under threat I can assure you, that you would dance to anyone’s tune even Lucifer's in order to save them. Such are the real horrors that these people have experienced and what is more shocking is that some of these horrors have been executed by not only the despots that have subjugated their lands and people but coldly and just as cruelly by our dearest so called "ally" as well.

Article 14.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, "Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution" that single sentence forms the core of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention which Australia ratified on 22 January 1954. That undertaking cannot be unilaterally abrogated once entered into by any member state of the United Nations without revocation of membership and pariah state status.

Again Australian Gov’t views are all thoroughly explained in the Australian Gov’t’s own words located here; http://www.aph.gov.au/Library/pubs/BN/sp/AsylumFacts.pdf

All the parties, including the Greens, support the deportation of asylum seekers who are found not to be genuine refugees. This is the rub. The debate needs to broaden out to include consideration of opening the borders. After all, if the big moral question is 'people smuggling', as Rudd/Gillard and Ruddock/Chris Evans claim it is, then open borders would put the people smugglers out of business immediately. The real problem, the difficult one, is the question of why we should exclude anyone who can come here on grounds other than health (and even then, it would be a case of quarantine rather than exclusion).

In response to CJ Morgan

This is CJ Morgan masquerading as a caring compassionate humanitarian.

1) If it was at all possible, I would like to swap Australian "scrotes" like Col Rouge for those desperate but deserving people who increasingly frequently make the unenviable decision to abandon their homelands to try and make a new life here. Australia has far too many heartless and sanctimonious bastards already. The fact that their government is on the way out seems to make them uglier and shriller with each awful utterance.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5799#79233

2) I certainly don't regard Rudd as a "'do no wrong' hero". In fact, when it comes to asylum seekers I'm increasingly disappointed by his gutlessness. He should quit playing populist politics and do the decent and humanitarian thing by abolishing mandatory detention and the so-called 'Indonesian Solution' altogether.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9595#153899

Sounds like a CARING guy, eh – the type you might envisage your daughter (or more realistically, perhaps, your widowed grandmother ) bringing home to dinner.

But under this façade lurks another CJ –the real CJ :

“I don't think any kind 'victory' is possible for the invaders in Afghanistan. They should cut their losses, withdraw and leave the Afghans to sort themselves out. It'll be messy, but it's inevitable.
Boaz - you seem to be unaware that poppy production in Afghanistan fell to almost zero when the Taliban were in power. Mind you, that's about the only positive thing to be said for that regime.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 11 June 2010 10:51:00 AM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3715#90014

Note this part :

“They should cut their losses, withdraw and leave the Afghans to sort themselves out. It'll be messy, but it's inevitable”

“ IT’LL BE MESSY, BUT IT’S INEVITABLE”

Not much concern for “ all the those desperate but deserving people” in that solution!

Morgan charges that AGIR and others manipulate the refugee issue for their own selfish ends

What is CJs agenda--- it clearly is NOT compassion!
No compassion , No consistency –No credibility !

Westralis

I would again draw your attention to the principle of equal treatment of asylum seekers. Now, you give this quote:

"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution"

Treating asylum seekers equally does not violate this right. If anything it enhances the right, discourages people traffickers, and protects the lives of asylum seekers by giving no selection advantage to them from undertaking dangerous journeys.

In contrast, a geographical discrimination of asylum seekers only seems to endanger lives and support criminals. It violates the principle of equality, and it does not change the number of refugees that Australia accepts. I would guess that the discriminatory selection system is also more costly to administer.

What is wrong with the notion of treating people equally?

Wow Horus - I'm obviously striking a nerve there. However, you don't appear to understand plain English. Each of those quotes that you painstakingly found is quite consistent with my attitude to refugees and those like you who hate them.

It's also perfectly consistent to call for both a more humanitarian approach to refugees and for an end to Australia's military involvement in Afghanistan. Indeed, all that military intervention in Afghanistan seems to have achieved is the generation of asylum seekers and the return to heroin production.

Compassion? You don't know the meaning of the word.

Nice side-step CJ –but not good enough!

Let me remind you of what you said, once again:
“ Leave the Afghans to sort themselves out. It'll be messy, but it's inevitable”

“IT’’LL BE MESSY BUT IT’S INEVITABLE”

So you are clearly not concerned about any of the human rights abuses that are likely to follow such “Leav(ing) ….[it to ] the Afghans to sort themselves out”

You appear to be interested in abuses only when they reach our shore in the form of asylum claimants.

In other words, you merely latch onto abuses as something to make your “pro-refugee “ case more appealing.

No compassion , No consistency –No credibility !

Horus, perhaps you could show how human rights abuses in Afghanistan have decreased due to Australia's military involvement there?

My position is that Afghanistan's problems don't have a military solution. That is the position I've held since Howard committed our military to the ill-advised 'Coalition of the Willing', and it hasn't changed. As time passes the evidence seems to suggest strongly that I was right.

Apparently you don't know the meaning of the word 'consistency' either.

I agree with CJ that Australian troops should not be in Afghanistan. Arguing for a military presence there is like arguing for migration on the basis that Australians are inept and incapable of advancing the nation on their own. And the argument would be less convincing if the migrants were heavily armed and conducted military sorties against Australian citizens.

A program offering education and assistance with development might be better received and more successful. It would at least be more compassionate.

CJ & Fester,

The issue is not whether we should or should not be involved in Afghanistan.

The issue is whether it is consistent to argue:
a) That we should cut and run from Afghanistan, and bugger the consequences, while maintaining that
b) When we get boat people claiming sanctuary from such consequences –we are lacking compassion –if we don’t seek to alleviate their plight.

Whether Afghanistan is better or worse than it was before we entered, is a side issue.
Whether or not there are other ways we could have done things better , another side issue.

And, as for the argument that there are no military solutions (another side issue)---can’t agree.
Afghanistan was once a Buddhist kingdom –how was that overturned -- Islam imposed one of its MILITARY solutions!

It was scandalous of the Rudd Labor Government to reintroduce a form of racial discrimination into immigration policy by freezing applications for refugee status from Afghans (and Sri Lankans). If Howard or Abbott had done such a thing, there would have been demonstrations across the nation.

I always find it interesting how neither the (pseudo) left nor the overt Right want to even discuss the prospect of 'open borders'. The libertarian Right is an exception, if Chris Berg is any example.

CJ Morgan,

Oh dear?

What is the problem? I see no reason why the money for each cannot benefit the other... Each and every illegal immigrant can wait in a remote (either Northern or Central Australian) Aboriginal Community.

I have every hope in the World that it would raise the state of living of the Aboriginal Communities so involved (what the refugees think of it isn't my problem, they chose to ask for something, they should be careful what they ask for?)... It is STILL Australia, just not the bit they wanted to be in.

That said, I'm sure the advocates for the Refugees will ensure the media, including the world media, see the conditions in which they are being asked to exist in, the issues they face, the incredible mortality rates, etc.

Quite frankly, I think it is one of my very few good ideas... It would certainly ensure some interesting Kangaroo based meals (Is roo halal?):D It would also help sort out the wheat from the chaff, anyone who found the Aboriginal Community an improvement on where they came from, certainly deserves Refugee Status.

Very droll, Custard. Er... you were trying to be funny, weren't you?

CJ... wins the award for hypocrite of the year :)

"It'll be messy, but inevitable"

No..it won't just be 'messay' it will be freaking GENOCIDE.

But the all wonderful, sweet moment of utter exposure of CJ's hypocrisy is this.

a) He absolutely knows that 'tribalism' will "inevitably" produce a horrific human body count in Afghanistan.

b) But that 'tribalism' will NEVER EVER occur when those same 'tribal' people are transplanted to Australia !

OF course they won't bring the same attitudes... nope... They won't feel the same about members of the other tribes who are here ...nope..
and

Utopia will reign :)

Onya CJ...we are all kacking ourselves...thants to Horus dilligence at scoping you out. Most of us don't worry enough about your views to even bother :)

Well. Border protection should boil down to just one issue.

"We decide...who comes here and in what circumstances"...

End of story.

You (whoever 'you' might be) can shove your Green watermelon 'international obligations' into the nearest landfill.

CJ Morgan,

I was being funny, to an extent and only to that extent...

Quite simply I see no reason why 'illegal immigrants' should receive ANY MORE than the least well-provided for Australian Citizen.

Why on Earth should they receive more? They most assuredly haven't earned it, or demonstrated their entitlement to it, have they?

The money we provide in order to meet with our "Obligations" (And I for one disagree with the suggestion that failure to meet our obligations with the UN would see us ousted as a pariah state, it hasn't hurt anyone else, has it?) could then be used to ensure to the benefit of the Aboriginal Communities they are accomodated within.

Personally I think that would be the sanest compromise to date... Put the people we don't want with the people whom we don't want to acknowledge exist, and see if the "rights" and "benefits" the UN supposedly require us to provide one, might also help the other.

It might also teach them a little about the Country they want to move to. It will certainly hit the media, 'nobody' will like the conditions these people are 'forced' to live in... It might lead to some real, measurable improvement.

How amusing to be called a hypocrite by Boazy, who is probably among the most frequently hypocritical contributors to this site.

Custard, just because we treat Aborigines appallingly is no reason to extend that inhumanity to other people who have been marginalised and abused in their homelands.

CJ :) just because we treat reffo's as kings and queens is no reason not to treat Indigenous people the same.

Or...back from the Watermelon twighlight zone that CJ lives in....

We decide.. who..when..and how.. and if I had my way.... 'we' (i.e.the democratically elected 'us') would be very very picky about 'what' those who seek to come here bring as ideological baggage.

Bruce Haigh has just given us his latest Aussie bashing rant..and suggested we should have open borders.. (that's how I understand his article).. but he (like CJ it appears) doesn't believe we would experience the same tribalist 'racism' that these people have inside them from their old countries..nope... as soooon as they hit Australia's shores they are *instantly* transformed into idealistic, benign, utopians who will do nothing but pursue their newly found 'fair go' and never ever demonstrate against our foreign or migration policy..no..not ever.

Please don't go away CJ :) we need you to highlight why we are right ^_0

No, that is true.

But until we treat ALL AUSTRALIANS equally, we have no business importing queue jumping, country shopping scam artists.

Until we get justice over the shooting by Whittington (http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.nt.gov.au%2Farchive%2Fdoc%2Fjudgements%2F2006%2Fntsc%2Fpdf%2F20060811ntsc64.pdf&ei=p_cpTK_7F8qGkAWP26zmAw&usg=AFQjCNG7rSfjBdoEtQE6AOEg_XmATg1oYQ&sig2=iWZANVl8jO1ivJC21Z3i8Q) of a young man (blindly discharging his firearm because he was 'scared', yet he got off because he wasn't charged for over 2 months), and for the poor bugger cooked in the paddy wagon...

Why on earth should anyone sanction spending money on the less deserving? I mean, it defies rational belief, these people aren't refugees according to the UN definition, so they have no right to be here, whereas the ATSI people have more right than you & me to be here. Why pass the buck?

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that we should stop this rot and finally hand over all refugees/asylum seekers/over-stayers to the UN so there will be one world wide body that can deal with all of them anywhere in the world and have them in UN-refugee centres to orderly deal with their placements from the time they arrived. Those travelling to Australia will discover it to be then a waste of time because the UN can have them placed anywhere in the world. We must not allow any refugee to dictate Australians that we have to take them and this is really what is happening now by those paying people smugglers while others waiting for years in camps are left to rot. That is not humanitarian consideration at all! Constitutionally the laws of Australia are to benefit Australians first and we should not have foreigners dictating our rights and occupy our courts. We have more then 7,000 young invalids in old age care homes and we could spend the money better to care for them more appropriately.
Let the UN sort out refugee issues and then if the UN request placements then and only then should we deal with if they are suitable or not to be accepted.

If we can have controlled refugee system then when refugees are held in a camp and those longest in the camp will be the first eligible for placement, then we can also seek to ensure that those who desire to come to Australia are showing a willingness to learn what Australia is about and also the language. As such, the Federal government could provide lessons about Australia in those UN camps for people considering to live in Australia and as such learn the language in the process also. Further, they need to learn that moving to Australia many of their native customs and traditions may not be permitted to be practised in Australia, being it honour killings and the likes. What we therefore would achieve is to get people migrating who have shown a certain degree of effort to learn about their future homeland and to be willing to assimilate into Australian’s way of life and not come here to seek to get a safe heaven for themselves only to turn Australia in some criminal hot bed because they haven’t got a clue what Australians customs and traditions are. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am too aware that the Framers of the Constitution specifically legislated for the Commonwealth to control immigration and if it is done wisely we all can benefit of it. The so called “economic refugees” are not interested in our rights and needs! The moment we allow others to dictate their intake we have lost the plot. And others then will follow likewise and we will get swamped by undesirable whereas if we do desire to do it for humanitarian reasons then let’s go for those longest in refugee camps and send all other back to a refugee camp so they have to await their turn.

Boaz: << as soooon as they hit Australia's shores they are *instantly* transformed into idealistic, benign, utopians who will do nothing but pursue their newly found 'fair go' and never ever demonstrate against our foreign or migration policy >>

I believe that's called a strawman argument, Boaz. Nobody but you has the expectation that immigrants of any description should be "idealistic, benign utopians". They just have to obey our laws.

Custard: << these people aren't refugees according to the UN definition >>

Bollocks. Over 90% of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are found to be bona fide refugees under the UN convention. Telling a lie repeatedly doesn't make it any truer, you know.

It should be understood that whatever provisions the UN may have doesn’t override our constitutional provisions or limitations! Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution made this clear when inserting s.51(xxvi), and also stated:
.
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of the common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
END QUOTE
.
As such, the UN cannot dictate us anything!
.
HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE The Right Hon. G.H. REID:
The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom, and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties, but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences.
END QUOTE
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view we should act within our constitutional framework!

Mr. Gerritt,
Do you have any knowledge of the UN treaties we have agreed to but have or have not legislated for?

I find it very interesting what you say and it seems we should do far more to educate ourselves about our constitution.