This article makes me bristle with very un-Christian indignation. It oozes self righteous libertarian prognostication; it drips with the “Authority” of humanitarian law and reeks of the reflected angst that seeks to make Australians feel guilt for the plight of refugees and personally responsible for any non-compliance with Convention and UNHCR laws.

By pointing to policies that are either compliant or non-compliant with the authors view, this whole “bleat” is then turned into a politically divisive issue, presumably to invoke political disadvantage against those politicians who do not subscribe to the Frank Brennan orthodoxy.

The case for “humanitarian” views requires us to suspend reality in order to adopt the guilt and as an Australian I reject this.

Most refugees are victims of failed states; almost exclusively they are citizens of countries oppressed by totalitarian dictatorships, primarily religious dictatorships although some are by military or so called benign “Royal Family” dictatorships. Australia has historically contributed to the liberation of these nations from oppression since WWI. There is no greater sacrifice than that made by our armed forces and their families.

Australia has offered trade to develop their economies; Australians have contributed through their taxes to development aid and Australians have dug deep into their personal funds to offer disaster relief. Australian NGO’s and Aid Agencies are courageously committed on the ground where it counts and we admire the commitment and mourn the loss of our defense forces trying to liberate such victims to this day.

Many Australian civilians have also become tragic victims of the same regimes that inflict misery on their own people. I’m personally sickened by our own Civil Rights and Humanitarian “industry” as it constantly exhorts Australians, under pain of being labeled racist, to ignore the reality of today’s world and accept more ideological “feel good” philosophies.

Those Australians who have given and suffered most to help these Nations for the past 90 years have every right to ask why are the “Professor Brennan’s” of this world, still fiddling with ideological “symptoms” rather than applying their undoubted intellectual skills to address the causes.

I thought we defeated facism in 1945?

spindoc: << Most refugees are victims of failed states; almost exclusively they are citizens of countries oppressed by totalitarian dictatorships >>

I'm glad you got that bit right. However, I don't understand why you want to punish those victims further by denying them the asylum to which they're entitled under the UN Convention.

Your comment oozes self righteous xenophobic obfuscation. Nobody's asking you to feel "guilt" - rather to exhibit a bit of compassion and human decency.

Why does anyone flee Afghanistan? Why indeed?

Corruption throughout Greater Asia where any benefits real or imaginary require "facilitations" of one kind or another. To the locals it is the distribution of wealth.
After 22 years in the region, I believe we should be wary of Afghanistan, or re-starting the food aid, or importantly, diverting what soil there is from the narco economy funding the terrorists as a means of stemming the exodus of more Alis.
Just how much of the material effort is likely to be diverted to the warlords as in Somalia ? .
It will be a long-term job limited by corruption, and at considerable risk, so why are we there is more the question than Why Ali Fled Afghanistan?. This is the breeding ground of an ideology of death and destruction that has spread rapidly.
Who could forget the chilling images of the innocents having their throat cut by those who believe that they will dwell in Paradise for having done so?. Al Queda’s success with the demoralized has demonstrated the necessity of our task and the Holsworthy Case reinforces thatperception. If the political, military or religious despots and terrorists can collectively lay claim to half of the World, then they will most certainly try for the other half.
But what of the hundreds of fit unattached males currently at Christmas Island? or the hundreds more that were escorted to the Island from August 26/09 or again yesterday ?, or hundreds more sheltered by corrupt local officials in small coastal villages in remote areas of Indonesia over which Central Government has no control?
Are they merely the fleetfooted of failing societies? or the beginning of something else. We have made it too attractive for both extremes to ignore. One would love the promise of peace and plenty and the other would love to destroy it.

You cannot tell Ali to go home and join the queue: there ain't one.

The existence of the refugee queue is most problematic for refugee advocates such as Professor Brennan. Refugee advocates see themselves as kind, compassionate and caring people, whose compassion is shown in their fanatical support of the asylum seekers arriving on Christmas Island, who they unfailingly and unquestioningly view as desperate refugees bravely fleeing persecution and torture.

The great majority of asylum seekers arriving at Christmas Island are able bodied men coming from Afghanistan. They are able to pay people smugglers many thousands of dollars (newspaper articles cite a cost of $15,000 per person) although the per capita income of Afghanistan is around $800 per year (about $2 per day). In contrast, the most desperate refugees in the world are single women and children living in squalid UNHCR refugee camps in Africa and Asia. They live in abject poverty and are forced to deal with hostile locals, an almost total lack of economic opportunities, frequent gender based violence, high rates of crime and food shortages. They are obviously unable to pay many thousands of dollars to people smugglers. Which of these two groups would you expect it would be logical for refugee advocates to extend their compassion to ?

Refugee advocates are compelled to deny the existence of a refugee queue as that would imply being misguided in their compassion, that is their compassion does not go to those most in need such as destitute and desperate women and children in UNHCR refugee camps, but instead goes to able bodied men having substantial financial resources to pay people smugglers. Refugee advocates just cannot admit to themselves or to others that for every asylum seeker arrival via people smugglers there is one less available place in Australia’s refugee resettlement program for refugees in much more desperate circumstance waiting in the refugee queue.

Habiba and her daughters are among a long queue of destitute refugees living in Pakistan as they go through the long process required by countries such as Australia, Canada and the US for asylum-seeker visas.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25451198-25837,00.html

franklin, that is as untrue now as when you first posted it (verbatim) on Tuesday, 30 March in another thread.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10213#166905

What is it, some kind of hate propaganda you've cut and pasted from a wingnut website?

Prof Brennan is correct: there is no queue. I agree that Australia needs to increase the number of refugees accepted from camps around the world. Of course, this can be done sustainably by cutting the skilled migration program and increasing our annual quota of humanitarian immigrants, rather than rejecting genuine refugees who arrive in Australia by boat.