Grim I'm disappointed how much you struggle to digest a simple concept about 'subjectivity'.
An 'act of inhumanity' against someone IS the 'better' option for someone who is in any way better off because of it.
For example, the oppression and tyranny the asylum seekers may have been originally under was the "better" way for the oppressors, as they could more easily keep a mandate.
Locking them out of Australia is the "better" option than letting them in for people that don't want them in the country, or else they see themselves worse off for peace, neighbourly social cohesion and security.
This is a simple fact of life that different people benefit from different things while others pay- whichever way the tables are turned.

All you, me or anyone else does is simply weigh up which group's rights I would sooner compromise for the others- based on perceptions of need, guilt, circumstance or consequence: and this holds true even in a simple discussion about "rights" in general. And sadly some people can't seem to grasp this because they're too absorbed in their own viewpoint to the point that they assume they hold "the one true discourse" to register those of others (even if they do ultimately reject them).

Now kindly answer MY question- what of individual refugees judged to be of poor character, emotional/mental stability or ability to integrate? In the past (and to some considerable extent present) immigration officials actually tend to largely let most refugees who satisfy these requirements into the country, after all.

I'm asking this because so far I've not seen anything more specific than THE refugees (single group- to the point that they're THE 4500) are being entirely denied entry for que jumping grounds- it's bull, they're not.
The issue COULD be how we process their claims (and what we do with them in the meantime), but the 'failed applicants' aren't quite the same- so I'm left wanting for answers and trying to ask a few extra questions.

Foxy,in answer to your recent post let me point out that ythe greeks,Italians and Viets did not threat to subvert the social order and institutions we love and will defend to the death. They had no ulterior motives like those imams who are already claiming which law they will accept and which they dont recognise, and the rights of our women folk are at stake. They believe that Australia will eventually become Islamic

socratease

Dear socratease,

The fundamentalists of any religion are
usually a small minority. Unfortunately
they're the ones that seem to attract
the media - and therefore tend to play
on people's fears and concerns.

Most people simply want to live in peace.

Foxy also keep in mind that there have been differences of integration in past arrivals due to difference of character criteria exercised by different governments- the refugees from WW2 and Vietnam had to pass the tighter criteria- while Malcolm's ignored reports of some of the refugees from the civil war in Lebannon did not but were still permitted citizenship, and the social problems in Lakemba and Cronulla over the past decade were fairly common may well be connected to the difference of criteria.

Again, we need to split up our treatment of refugees on an individual or family-by-family basis judged on character.

Hazz,
you want to be even-handed.I appreciate that.
But even good character is no criteria. All thhose in the twin tower bombings were men of good character; good according the criteria of their imam and community in Pakistan. In Britain the London bomber was a good character primary school teacher who was much-respected by his principal and colleagues. he was loved by his pupils.
He had been indoctrinated and brain-washed to be a mass killer.

socratease

Your Majesty, I'm disappointed how much you struggle to digest a simple concept about objectivity.
Any Law worthy of the name must be applicable to everyone, including oneself. You still haven't managed to supply me with a single instance of an act of inhumanity applied to yourself, which you would describe as 'better'.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting an unqualified open door policy. Citizenship oaths definitely have a place -although I think they could be simplified down to: "are you prepared to respect the rights of others, as you would have them respect yours?"
The point where we differ appears to be that you want to treat people as guilty, until proven innocent.