Susan
I am not twisting Christian values to suit, I am an atheist. I am arguing purely that you or I cannot use someones religiosity to presume a certain stance nor interpret their values to suit our own political agenda. Hypocrisy is a human trait it is not confined to the Church.

I put these sorts of coments in the same camp as those who would tar Athiests as lacking in morals just for believing there is no supreme being.

My use of the word 'allow' was to make the point that all applicants end up in the processing queue - their status yet to be determined; and how compassion may be manipulated to argue any aspect of a debate.

Much of the assistance given to refugees in the form of legal aid is not pro bono, fees are paid by government. Yes some groups do assist with legal costs but this is paid by via donations (and government funding). The Red Cross I believe is also contracted by Government to provide some forms of assistance to refugees. And yes there are some lawyers who work pro bono.

I have no issue with the well intentioned nature of your article only the manner in which you chose to convey your meaning.

Meander...the Christian principles you seek can be found in the 1997 and 2001 DFAT White Papers.

They formed the basis of Australia's Foreign Policy during the Howard era, and as far as I know are still in place under Rudd, unless Smith has put out a new White Paper to replace it.

You may, quite reasonably, reply that these are hardly 'Christian values', to which I would have no argument to counter you with, but this is what Howard's era was built on, quite openly and deliberately.

It marked a move away from Realism as an essential marker of our national security programme, based on the old concept of 'national interest', and a move into a form of Social Constructivism.

Howard was the first PM to openly mix domestic and external foreign policy objectives, making a 'domesternal' policy as the mainstay of his time.

Smith and Rudd have, to some extent, returned to a Realist path but the concept of 'Christian values' became interchangeable with 'Australian values' under Howard, and that has barely altered under Rudd.

Rudd also believes Australia is a Christian nation, as did Beasley... and most of the ALP.

It goes without saying that none of the Coalition would own up to any hint of non-belief in their heads.

Leigh, you said “Christianity had nothing to do with illegals entrants or politicians”. You may wish that were true, but it’s not. It has many things to say about both, as previous posts have shown.

Underpinning this article are some important issues. Susan asks what kind of Christianity these politicians “represent”. I might even be in agreement with Leigh when I say they don’t “represent” Christianity when they enter politics – they are there to represent their constituents and parties in the national interest. They take their own values and worldviews with them, including their religion. But their contract with the electorate is not to pursue these primarily, still less to impose a theocracy.

By becoming a politician they enter a secular game and agree to play by secular rules. That entails pragmatism and compromise and means they can’t always act entirely in accordance with their values and ideals. The key question is how much compromise they can tolerate before they are themselves compromised

“There is absolutely no evidence that anyone of importance or official status ever said anything remotely like that; perhaps one of the anti Labor hacks at the Australian might have imagined it!”

When will you be producing the evidence the UN did not say that, Peter King? If you are going to require evidence from other people, you need to be prepared to provide your own evidence for what you say.

And, the outdated 1951 Convention on refugees does NOT give the right to illegals arriving on smugglers’ boats to rock up, uninvited on the shores of any country. Australia, unlike other signatories to a convention which belonged to a different time, when the current open slather could not have been envisaged, takes UN-processed refugees from off-shore. People have to set foot on the land of the other signatories before they have a chance of being granted asylum.

No one, even bona fide refugees have the right to shop for a country.

It is true that Howard did not “solve the refugee problem”; he had not intention or doing so. Howard solved Australia’s border protection problem, and prevented illegal entry, actually stopping people smugglers in their tracks. No longer could smugglers convince paying customers that it was OK to go to Australia illegally. Never was the Howard Government in breach of a Labor-signed and outdated convention. Never did Australia lose credibility; indeed, it gained respect and envy from other countries who couldn’t manage to do the same thing.

Rudd has dismantled that, and we now have a open door policy; worse, Rudd’s policy actually encourages people smugglers and their illegal passengers.

Rudd is the one who lost credibility and integrity, globally and locally

Howard did NOT solve the border protection problem and Rudd didn't "dismantle" any policy except the one about temporary protection visas. Howard was about to abandon this policy himself because it was ineffective and against international standards. There was no international "envy" - just criticism.

Interesting to note that the Libs did not oppose this being scrapped in Parliament at the time and some even spoke in favour of it going.

As shown in all the UNHCR studies, the global rise and fall in refugee numbers coincided with periods of conflict or calm and these statistics correlate with our own.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/immigration/howards-boat-people-claim-rubbished/2005/07/01/1119724809508.html is just one example.

The recent rise corresponds to the Sri Lanka conflict and even Howard's "policy" could not have prevented this latest wave.

It seems that we are slipping back into the "hate" mode that many were sick of when they flushed Howard's team a couple of years ago.

Don't be so sure Rache:

Firstly, your counter-claim article, aside from merely making a largely unsubstantiated statement and doing little to connect the statement it merely implies is connected (world trends as only factor Australian assylum seeker rise and drop), is from 2005- FIVE years prior to the article from only two days ago Leigh brought up showing the contradicting trends of the jump in Asylum seekers turning to Australia and drop in asylum seeker numbers worldwide.

Secondly, are you SURE it was 'everyone' getting sick of anti-refugee stances that ousted the Howard Government?
All political parties are a packaged deal- and the Liberals also had the Iraq War, Workchoices, the NT intervention scheme and various aspects of their performance and ideas they endorsed that *might* have also played a part.