Well Grim in my post to you earlier gauging "humanity" in, approximately, willingness to take refugees, my post simply argued such weak claims- and you DO fall neatly into the category of 'my-morals-only' if you feel that anyone who doesn't show compassion towards refugees is less than human.

Anyway- my point is the term "better" is nothing but subjectivity.
"Better" could be helping them get into the country for those that wish to be charitable, while "Better" could be measures PREVENTING them get into the countries by those that don't want them.

And comfort vs charity could go a reasonable way if you are advocating also letting in those of low character, behavior, respect for laws or standing a poor chance of integrating or respecting their neighbours (the point of allowance/denial of visas on such grounds- as part of our visa rejection criteria that seems to be overlooked by everyone needs to be raised again to analyze as another issue).
Not to mention harassment, theft and assault of disregarding character criteria.
Many people put those contexts together (maybe too generalizingly) and perceive it as having to give up their peace to accommodate someone who would sooner abuse them than return it- and live with this for the rest of their lives (no good turn goes unpunished, after all ;P).
I don't see how one's right to these things must be overridden because some other person had theirs threatened more than they, previously.

Regional resettlement should be an option- many areas would love to have them, so I think another thing that needs to be done is consult which people actually DO (or else there is no community to integrate them into).

I don't care who they let in but muslims are trouble-keep 'em out!

I appreciate your response, Brian.

I cannot honestly put myself into the shoes of these people; all I can do is realise how much better off I am than people who feel that they need to pay smugglers to take them on a dangerous journey to enter another country illegally.

I am better off than they are because of my Anglo/Saxon background which has ensured a decent life for all Australians. Countries like Iraq, Sri Lanka, Iran, Africa etc. have yet to reach our stage of enlightenment and decency. Our forbears fought for those things long ago. Third World countries must do the same.

I simply do not believe that it is the job of Australia – or the west in general – to provide foreigners with the same standards as we have: they must do it on their own, and coming to the West will not help the vast majority of their countrymen who are left behind.

I am also aware of some of the things which occur in these countries to some of their people. I am not convinced that those coming here illegally are necessarily victims of terror, particularly as most destroy any identity documents the might have had. More importantly, I don’t believe our immigration officials are capable of choosing between genuine need for asylum and economic motives for wanting to come to Australia. They have a bad track record – not even able to distinguish between a permanent resident and an Australian citizen and unlawful over-stayers a couple of years ago. To this, of course, add Kevin Rudd: the most incompetent and detached Australian Prime Minister since Billy McMahon. This man has lost any semblance of control over border protection, and is not living up to Australia’s unfortunate (in my view) ‘obligations’ to UN processed and genuine refugees still waiting overseas. More illegals mean fewer of the people who have done the right thing in line with our orderly policy, and the outdated 1951 Convention

Leigh,

As so often occurs you offer a voice of reason, commonsense and honesty, often in a sea of other dishonest leftist posters. On this occasion even though I disagree with much of what Brian has said, he is also to be congradulated for the calm tone of his posts. He is unlike so many of the Politically correct leftist bullies that troll around on this website. It is only a matter of time before Brian, through reason and considered debate will, I believe see the error in his ways.

Well done.

Shorter Leigh: 'I'm alright Jack, stuff everybody else who's not Anglo-Saxon'.

Shorter ozzie: 'You're wonderful Leigh, because you're as racist as me, unlike all those nasty human rights types who point out how hateful I am'.

What a load of right wing, racist tossers. It's the moral equivalent of 'I'm OK jack, now F-off".

At best their ideas are lost in clumsy relativism, at worst, they parade their ignorance of Australia's immigration and refugee policies with Lady Godiva immodesty but unlike Godiva - they hide in anonimity.

I don't much care if people come out and start screaming 'I hate blacks, Muslims, Asians,' etc but don't hide behind your condescending rhetoric that you give a damn.

Who was the pin head who said we should let the aforesaid mentioned in to Australia because their country isn't as developed as Australia? Is that your refugee policy? Maybe we should measure their heads and see how developed they are re brain size. Lets start with you.

Leigh, look up John Rawls. He's the social philosopher which this Government (and every Oz government going back to Fraser) base their immigration and refugee policies on. Never heard of him? Didn't think so.

Are boat people real people? Not for Ozzie and Leigh. Remember that cobbers when a government decides to put your fascist policies in to practice and they come for you.