People arriving by plane do not arrive illegally. They become illegals only after their visas expire or if they work in Australia without a working visa. Immigration is always tracking these people down (not as successfully as might be desired), but it is not an easy job once they have disappeared in the general population.

These people cannot be compared with illegals coming in boats without visas or identity papers; nor can the policing of visa over-stayers be compared with the policing, prevention and turning around of the illegal boats, who actual look for naval and customers patrols to escort them to Christmas Island. The prevention and turning around of boats would not – if the government had the will to do it – have any of the time consuming, expense and identification difficulties of visa over-stayers.

People paying smugglers to get them here illegally should not even be mentioned in the same breath as those who arrive here legally, then stay illegally. The situations are entirely different, even though government should be acting stringently on both offences.

Even the offshore refugees who have been taken into Australia after UN processing are starting to complain that they cannot apply for family reunion consideration because of the people arriving illegally on boats.

The Refugee Convention of 1951 is simply not appropriate for today’s situation, no matter who signed it, and there is nothing in it legally binding signatories to deal with illegals who did not exist in the period the Convention applied to. It is doubtful that any country would sign anything like it today.

Leigh

I have noticed for a long time the care you put into your comments.

I need to better express what I meant by "cruel". I meant not attempting to feel as the boat-people feel.

Ever been in a position when you just had to get away regardless of the consequences? Saddam's Iraq is almost inconceivable. A lowly-ranked officer could walk into your home, take your daughter and rape her for a week. If you were suspected to be adverse to the government by simply having a friend who was, you could be boiled alive.

The instinct in both you and I would be to run. So when Asera ran with Farrah, she was not so much being irresponsible, but was an animal in flight. So Leigh, you are seriously underestimating what these people were running from.

421 got onto a boat 19.4m x 2m. Measure that out in your back yard. Once seeing the boat, why would anyone ever get onto it? A survivor said that those who attempted to turn back were beaten by the Indonesian police who wanted to get rid of them.

There are two sides to every story. Those who are very worried about boarder protection will see one side. Read on the web what the experience of a detention centre did to one doctor who simply volunteered for the novelty of the work

One wonders how Brian Holden can be privy to the most intimate thoughts of Asera : from what she was thinking when she left Iraq, to what she was thinking moments before she drown .He appears to know it all!

His piece reads more like a chapter from Mills & Boon than any investigative reporting, constructed to trawl emotion –with little regard for facts.

His statement: “Because our children have Asian and Middle Eastern school friends, they are far less likely to be as racist as their parents”, seems to carry an implication that racism is endemic to white societies (a belief prevalent in circles that are big on refugee sympathy). It’s almost as if the only inoculation for this wretched “racism” is to import foreigners who will somehow (ala cowpox v smallpox) make us immune to further outbreaks.

How is it Holden is not aware that some of the most virulent forms of racism are to be found in “Middle Eastern & Asian” societies (except of course, few dare call it racism) .

Further, the live-and- let-live ethos we generally find in Aust society, I’d suggest, has more to do with a relative abundance of resources /opportunity than any permanent change in human nature, and if Australia was to following a policy of accepting all needy ( mindful of the numbers involved) – which it seems we’d have to do, if we were to be of principle & evenhanded –we’d very quickly lose that relative abundance and become just another overloaded, Middle Eastern franchisee .

What I don't like about the tone often expressed in the article is how some writers here are trying to disingenuously simplify the situation as something along these lines:

There are lots of super-nice friendly people who are fleeing across the world on the only way available to them to get to our country but they're all stopped and imprisoned solely on the basis that a bunch of super-racist Christians with no cross-cultural experience who are ignorant to their suffering or else how could they possibly be so morally deviant, due to indignation about cutting the que through nautical measures and improperly filled out visa forms
Throw in a splash of gigantic shariah demographic conquest in the mix.

No seriously, that's what it sounds like.

It aint. As long as anyone advocating any position based on stupid exaggerations or strawmen this situation will remain exactly the same.
There are people with plenty of experience and familiarity advocating BOTH positions, and factors such as character of applicants are also grounds of rejection.

Can we please move this topic above the pathetic stereotypes please?
(or just go ahead and ignore this post as part of the 'too hard' basket- or pick and choose parts you like and pretend the rest didn't exist.)

Good post,King Hazza.
socratease

I thank his Majesty kindly for throwing the word 'neatly' at me; it's not an epithet I have had to wear very often.
As to egocentricity, perhaps His Majesty could supply an example of inhumanity applied to his royal self, which could be described as 'better'; ie, if he was drowning, and everyone decided not to pull him out, would that be better?
I do have to agree on his assessment of his own courage, however. As I have mentioned on several occasions concerning the 'children overboard incident, I was gobsmacked that so many Australians, sons and daughters of ANZACS, should be so panty wetting terrified of a handful of refugees on a leaky boat.
As for stupid exaggerations, is his royal highness suggesting children didn't drown? Or that the parents of such children wouldn't be anguished? Or that a father shouldn't do everything he could to get his family out of a horrible existence, and into a better one?
Or that some people in our own society regard their own 'discomfort' as more important than someone else's torment?
Please, be so kind as to identify the 'stupid exaggerations'.
As I see it, the major problem lies in the fact that almost all immigrants and refugees not only end up in the cities, but very specific suburbs of the cities; leading inevitably to racial tensions in those areas. I would suggest many of these problems, like unemployment and work visas, would be better handled as a local problem, by local councils. Instead of bringing in refugees to 'Australia', why not bring a few into say, Bundaberg (major fruit growing area)?
Or any area where there are people prepared to sponsor, or mentor the newcomers.
And yes, your majesty, I would be only too happy to have such people live next door to me.