Much of the left are very compassionate as long as it involves your money.

The following newspaper article describes the story of Habiba Hosseini. Her parents fled the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan with their children in the early 1980s for Iran and lived an uneasy existence as refugees in a hostile host country. Habiba fled a forced and abusive marriage in Iran with her teenage daughters to her brother's home in Afghanistan, only to be told her daughters must return to their father. In 2006 she and her two daughters arrived penniless and terrified in Pakistan and have since been waiting in an (“imaginary”) refugee queue for an offshore humanitarian visa to Australia. The UNHCR classified Habiba and her daughters as women at risk. Habiba and her daughters are among a long (“imaginary”) queue of refugees living in hiding and penury in Pakistan as they go through the long process required by countries such as Australia, Canada and the US for asylum-seeker visas.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25451198-25837,00.html

The following online article describes the story of Norooz Ali Iqbal. Norooz's family owned a gold shop in Kabul. He felt that life in Afghanistan was hard, the family was threatened by unrest and ethnic tensions and the growing strength of the Taliban. He and his wife Adila had given up on their homeland and dreamed of living in Australia. He decided to leave Afghanistan and was able to apply for a passport, buy a plane ticket and obtain a visa at the Indonesian Embassy in Kabul. He did not need to wait in the long (“imaginary”) queue of refugees for an offshore humanitarian visa to Australia. Most unfortunately his journey to Australia ended in tragedy.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2474952.htm

There are limited numbers of refugee resettlement places made available by Australia each year. Some asylum seekers like Norooz can arrive via people smugglers and in that way claim a resettlement place, most asylum seekers like Habiba cannot. The question for refugee advocates such as Susan Metcalf is who should take precedence for the scare resettlement places, those most in need of resettlement in the (“imaginary”) queue of refugees, or those that have substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers.

Keith, I am sorry you feel ignored but I don't ever respond well to commands, or personal attacks, and I have very limited time to engage on here. I have answered your question, you just don't like my answer and you seem to prefer an argument. I don't do compassion by numbers and we probably just see life very differently. I am happy to agree to disagree with you. My idea of Christianity is obviously very different to yours and I am sure you can grapple with your own Christian beliefs. My article calls to account our politicians and the media for what they say and do. all the best Susan

This news story from the ABC today seems relevant:

<< Church slams Abbott's 'chilling' asylum message

The Uniting Church's president has described Federal Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's language on asylum seekers as "extreme".

Mr Abbott said this week that a Coalition government would do "whatever it takes" to stop unauthorised boat arrivals in Australian waters.

Reverend Alistair Macrae says his Easter message is for Australians to be more welcoming to asylum seekers.

He says there has been a mean-spirited approach to the issue.

"Mr Abbott's phrase 'whatever it takes' is slightly chilling to me," he said.

"It just seems quite extreme language for an issue which on the world scale is pretty small.

"We're talking as if we're being inundated by asylum seekers at the moment, but relative to other countries the numbers that come here [are] really a mere trickle." >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/01/2862185.htm?section=justin

It seems to me that Christianity accommodates a wide range of attitudes to asylum seekers, from the compassion of Rev Macrae to the "mean-spiritedness" displayed by the Mad Monk.

CJM

Although I agree with your sentiments, I do wonder why we bother to take any notice of these people, "Reverend Alistair Macrae says his Easter message is for Australians to be more welcoming to asylum seekers".

Now, why do we give this sort of 'special pleading' any oxygen?

Why is the Revs message restricted to being an 'Easter' message?

Why is it not just a 'Thursday' message, or a Tuesday one, or a Saturday one?

By allowing the Revs 'Easter message' some credibility, we encourage them with their 'special status' claims.

I suspect a range of people, those with and those without any burden of 'faith' think in 'for' and 'against' tones on this matter.

Besides, Abbott and many others are as 'Christian' as this Rev, so clearly just identifying as 'a Christian' produces no guarantee of any particular model of thinking.

So, CJM, I am sorry to say, that although the Rev may well be well intentioned, his words are no more 'special' than yours, or mine, or Susan Ms are.

The very idea that there is 'a Christian view' on this or any matter, is patently false.

Like so much else to do with 'religion'.

A mate (as Rudd would say) has just sent me a pdf of his local paper which has just produced a hint of what 'real Christians' think.

It is April Fool today, so I am not sure if it is a bad hoax or not.

The ever loving geeks at Toowoomba's Easterfest have decided to import a Bren gun and a Matilda tank to the event to show the clear link between war, the ever loving Jesus and the Easter message.

'Heavens above'... I was heard to exclaim on reading this tripe.

But this is par-for-the-course, isn't it?

The 'blood sacrifice of Jesus', ANZAC Day, Gallipoli, the birth of a nation, war, Easterfest, and the caring hands of Rudd, Abbott, and the Rev above.

What pitiful piffle it all is.

Susan

I don't feel ignored, only let down.

I liked the answer you gave to my question my problem with your answer was that it never adressed in specifics the specific question I raised. And no I don't want an argument, I want a clarification of you position.

I'm disappointed you cannot confront the lack of credibilty you engender when you have issue with others who advocate low numbers yet you don't criticis the ROCA ,for advocating a limit of 20,000. Both enunciated a limit. Effectively they have a similar solution only difference is lower or larger numbers.
Or is it that you want an unrestricted number of asylum seekers to be allowed to settle in Australia annually?

I hope you were not suggesting I was indulging in 'commands, or personal attacks'.

And with due respect I do hope we see life differently ... it would be really odd if we didn't.