Not trolling ozzie, just trying to inject some reality into the debate.

<< do a little reading, get a proper education, then come back and express a more balanced logical point of view, that is more in line with what I think. >>

Now that's what I call trolling. I'm sure I'm at least as well-read and educated as you are, very probably more so with respect to cross-cultural matters.

But you knew that already, didn't you?

socratease - the 4500 figure is van Onselen's, not mine. However, while it seems reasonable, the real point is that it doesn't really matter in the overall immigration picture. They are accommodated within our refugee quota, which ought to be considerably expanded anyway, in my view. This can be done sustainably by abolishing the 'skilled' migration program in favour of one that is predicated entirely on humanitarian obligations.

Van Onselen?
Am I supposed to stand in awe of the name? Should I genuflect?
Come on Rev Morgan, this is trolling, a much practised art from what i can see from your posts. You would like to see the numbers "expanded"?
What a compassionate man, so full of the milk of human kindness.
There.
That's what you wanted. Now do you mind letting the debate take on a more level-headed stance.

I would rather expand the refugee quotas in favour of emptying the refugee camps in Somalia, the Congo and other African countries where real trauma and suffering has been experienced. These peoiple are destitute and dont have the tens of thousands of dollars to buy their way into Australia. Here are more deserving cases. Not a syllable of advocacy from you and your do-gooders still wondering about which end of you know what to hold.

Come on.Let up. Your unctious grace is wasted on the rest of us,Reverend CJ.

socratease

socratease: << Should I genuflect? >>

I wouldn't have thought so - he's just a bright young right-wing academic who's written a column in Saturday's Oz that you really should read. If you do, you'll see that it's a refreshingly balanced piece on the topic of this discussion.

Which part of my comment that Australia's refugee program "ought to be considerably expanded anyway" didn't you understand? One of van Onselen's points is that the 4500 asylum seekers who've arrived here since Rudd became PM are easily accommodated within the current refugee quota of 13,750 per annum. If that number is "considerably expanded" as I suggest, then the additional refugees would obviously come from offshore sources like Africa, not to mention refugee camps in SE Asia, Pakistan etc.

There's no need to engage in disingenuous waffle about which refugees are more deserving than others, not to mention the baseless speculation about the legitimacy of those refugees who are accepted. Similarly, there's no need to vilify legitimate asylum seekers as "illegals" and "aliens", when everybody knows that they are entitled to seek refuge under Article 51 of the UN Convention. If Australia abolishes the shonky 'skilled' migration program, we could quadruple our refugee intake while still halving total immigration.

So what's your real problem? Be honest now.

I think the main concern that most Australians have with this whole boat people thing is that we are being taken for a ride. I believe most Australians are fair minded people willing to help genuine refugees. However these boat people are really just taking advantage of Australia's goodwill for their own economic gain.
I have a very close friend who is a refugee from Vietnam more than 20 years ago. That person spent over 1 year in a camp in Indonesia and tells me they were treated very poorly but were thankful for any help they received. Whilst on a boat travelling to Indonesia they were boarded by pirates, robbed, some people killed and some women raped. After 1 year in the camp they received approval from the UN for resentlement in Australia and were again very thankful to the Australian government for any help received. This person I speak of feels the vast majority of these boat people now are just economic refugees out for something better at Australia's expense. She looks at them and just laughs at how fake they are, "they are not genuine refugees". This is what I object to most, somewhere in the last 20 years this whole thing became a business of people just out for a better life.
I have nothing against helping genuine refugees who will respect our laws and be grateful for what they are given.
Today on the News there was a refugee advocate justifying the destruction of property by asylum seekers because the facilities are overcrowded. The same excuse was used last time there was a riot there. So I suppose the next time I get on a crowded bus or train I'm justified in destroying property.
I repeat, my close personal friend is a refugee arriving in indonesia by boat 20 years ago. She feels most refugees today (more than 95%) are fakes and should be sent back. If any of you have more experience than her, I would like to hear your opinion.

Ozzie, I'm familiar with a number of people who consider their own experiences to be more 'real' than the experiences of others; hence the title of this article, perchance?
Your Majesty, you appear to have overlooked the question I addressed to your Royal Personage: under what conceivable circumstances would you regard an act of inhumanity directed at yourself (or perhaps your wife or children) as 'better'?

"Protecting our borders, from women and children
and destitute people, a few hundred, a few thousand
at the most, as though they could ever be a threat
to Australia...

It's possible to play upon our fears and our concerns
about the unknown, unknown people who come from a
different land; they look different and they come from
a religion that's different to what we practice...
When you appeal to these things you appeal to the
worst part of our nature - not the best!"
(Malcolm Fraser - former Liberal PM of Australia).

Many people seem to forget the fears that initially
existed with each wave of people who came to this country.
Australia voted "No" on the first wave of refugees after
the second World War. The Government did what was good
for the country. Australia again voted "No," against
Greeks, Italians, later Vietnamese, and so on - yet the
country not only survived but prospered.

And, it shall continue to do inspite of the current
attempts to again play upon our fears and concerns.