The existence of the refugee queue is most problematic for refugee advocates such as Sue Metcalfe. Refugee advocates see themselves as kind, compassionate and caring people, whose compassion is shown in their fanatical support of the asylum seekers arriving on Christmas Island, who they unfailingly and unquestioningly view as desperate refugees bravely fleeing persecution and torture. Refugee advocates are very quick to characterize others who do not share their views as unchristian, mean spirited, lacking compassion, xenophobic, racist and other such denigrating labels.

The great majority of asylum seekers arriving at Christmas Island are able bodied men coming from Afghanistan. They are able to pay people smugglers many thousands of dollars (newspaper articles cite a cost of $15,000 per person) although the per capita income of Afghanistan is around $800 per year (about $2 per day). In contrast, the most desperate refugees in the world are single women and children living in squalid UNHCR refugee camps in Africa and Asia. They live in abject poverty and are forced to deal with hostile locals, an almost total lack of economic opportunities, frequent gender based violence, high rates of crime and food shortages. They are obviously unable to pay many thousands of dollars to people smugglers. Which of these two groups would you expect it would be logical for refugee advocates to extend their compassion to ?

Refugee advocates are compelled deny the existence of a refugee queue (“imaginary queue”) as that would imply being misguided in their compassion, that is their compassion does not go to those most in need such as destitute and desperate women and children in UNHCR refugee camps, but instead goes to able bodied men having substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers. Refugee advocates just cannot admit to themselves or to others that for every asylum seeker arrival via people smugglers there is one less available place in Australia’s refugee resettlement program for refugees in much more desperate circumstance waiting in the refugee queue.

Rhian:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/12/1037080728677.html

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/08/22/1029114162991.html

Franklin, refugees are not standing in a supermarket queue and if you really engaged with refugees you would understand their reality.

In my article I have called into question the integrity of all our politicians who want to present themselves as christians and family loving when their words and actions reveal something else -if you want to defend them good for you, you obviously love them more than me, but I don't believe they are being genuine with themselves of anyone else if they think that being tough on refugees is in tune with Christian values. I think they are talking rubbish.

As for your line about the people in the camps, well why don't you start advocating for more people to be taken from the camps. The many people I know who are supporting many refugees don't discriminate between people on the basis of whether they arrived on boats, plane, or whether they are still in camps, or whether they were delivered by the stork. As far as you disclose, and please tell me otherwise, you are not advocating for or supporting any of these people. You are running a political line. You want to create divisions.

Male refugees are not monsters, many are extremely vulnerable, I know numerous who have been tortured and continue to suffer horrendous consequences - please do not scapegoat men. Of course I agree that women and children constitute most of the world's most vulnerable refugees but many of these men are supporting them. But again you want to be divisive - you are telling people that compassion is only allowed for some people but not others. If you think that African refugees in camps are the most vulnerable then support them, but you will need to convince the Opposition - Kevin Andrews told us at the last election campaign that the most needy from Africa were not actually the most important anymore because they weren't integrating.

cont'd Franklin - Have you entertained the thought that perhaps the problem is not them, that perhaps it is us and our policies along with the rest of the world?

And really, you think you are the victim instead of the refugees because refugee advocates are pinning labels on you. This seems to be at the core of the anti refugee sentiment, people who believe their victimhood is actually greater than refugees.

BTW, to say that Afghanistan and Pakistan have the same religion is to oversimplify.

Many Afghan refugees are from the Hazara ethnic group. They are Shia Muslims, whereas other Afghans are Sunni Muslims. Hazara Shiites suffer from the prejudice and worse of some Sunnis, especially the Taliban who persecute and murder them as heretics.

In Pakistan, there are often outbreaks of lethal violence between Sunni and Shia hotheads, as for example the recent bombing and riots in Karachi.

Franklin,

The “Age” article has several hallmarks of shonky shock journalism – unattributed quotes, numbers expressed in ways that are vague but intended to give the impression that the problem is extensive, incorrect and loaded phrases such as “illegal illegal Pakistani Temporary Protection Visa (TPV) holders” (if they held visas, they were not illegal!).

It’s also almost 8 years old – things have change since then.

But even if the information were both accurate and current, it does not really answer my question. Granted that some people lie to gain admission, does that mean we should turn back all applicants, knowing that the human cost of doing so would be far greater than the cost of letting a few people slip through who shouldn’t?

Susan,

quite obviously you are refusing to answer my question!

When you do you will cease your insessant denigrating of people who have the same compassion as you and I. Their only difference is they want Australia to accept less refugees in a more controlled manner than you and I. (Although I like you also think things shouldn't be allowed to get to the stage of open borders ... as we are seeing currently.)

To win them over ... well you won't, you will only get their backs up, with your continual carping ascusations and criticism.