AG

you can't help yourself.

* We have only ever had around just over twenty thousand people coming here by boat in the past thirty years. Half the world is not applying to come here. our current applications for asylum from onshore or offshore represent 1.6 percent of the world's applications.
* We now take 13,750 refugee and humanitarian entrants, boat arrivals or not we will be taking the same amount this year. sponsored applicants will be less and yes advocates have concerns about that when we deal with people waiting to sponsor relatives (most will already be rejected and this is something that needs fixing).
* When a person arrives they are put through stringent id, security and health checks, biometric testing is now being introduced to check Id in addition to other tests. Interviews with applicants can be very long as can the process of verifying their story. If you worked in this area or dealt with refugees over a long period and listened to the very long horrible details and saw the post traumatic stress, anxiety, mental disorders caused by torture, the signs of what can only have been torture, you might have some understanding. The refugee convention is clear and the narrow requirements that more than 90% of recent applicants have met have been specific.

It is easy to condemn people anonymously from a comment board on the internet and to talk about sending people back to their death, it is nasty, it is cowardly. When people write articles about refugees these days they create a gathering point for muslim haters and bigots to spit venom from the shadows. John Howard and Ruddock were good at getting their messages through which are still being regurgitated as fact. If you look at this forum you can see only a few people who support refugees posting here, the subject is complex but the comments are simple boring politics without insight and the rest I have said.

Thanks Susan Metcalfe, mellom, Kumbalia and Slobodon.

<< It is easy to condemn people anonymously from a comment board on the internet and to talk about sending people back to their death, it is nasty, it is cowardly. When people write articles about refugees these days they create a gathering point for muslim haters and bigots to spit venom from the shadows. >>

That is so true. I often argue against the haters and bigots at OLO about refugees, but I must confess that it gets quite depressing at times. I have only admiration for those like Susan Metcalfe and mellom who deal with the reality of refugees' lives daily.

First of all I would like to thank Shadow for providing statistics and AlGoreisRich for providing the legal parameters.

Now for the bad part:

Kumbalia- seeing as the statistics correspond most precisely to the implementation and withdrawal of the Pacific Solution I would say it is valid. And did it ever occur to you that being a concern to many people in the countries where most refugees come from, maybe know of people who went, they might actually get news of it? You know, consulates, TV (yes, most of these countries have these things).

Slobodon- oh no! The fact that John Howard personally probably didn't actually care somehow weakens the case! Why? You seem to presume everyone against refugees in any way relies on Howard's integrity or must otherwise cede? I don't get it.

Mellom- speaking of repeating the same lines that lessen the debate (as opposed to quoting evidence), the "oh, if you only heard what these people go through your heart would be moved SO much you wouldn't be so stern" is probably the poorest one in the book. Believe it or not some people are basing their judgement on logic and not on emotions, and aren't remotely swayed by how bad it is as much as considerations of the implications of letting them in.

I think the debate is over if two pieces of evidence fall in and everyone else pretends they don't exist and still wants to make strawmen and spin. It makes me wonder about the average age of the posters here.

Cj don't let them get to you, they bark loudly but they are disturbed. they want to silence everyone with tough talk, learnt from their political role models. bullying with phrases eg put up or shut up and displaying what they think is toughness can temporarily reduce anxiety when people can't face themselves, its about them and their problems. People who end up in crime can talk that way, adolescents who see the world in angry black and white terms, the bitter, twisted, and personality disordered. these people are all over the comments pages on the internet spreading their anger. If they stopped for a minute they would have to look in the mirror. too scarey

Kumbalia,

I thought so. Just bluff and bluster no substance.

Like all the other bleeding hearts that give support to the parasites that traffic in human beings you are simply giving in to sentimentality.

While I would love to wave a magic wand and welcome the starving millions, there are limited resources to do so. Do we allow our refugee policy be dictated by the richest of the refugees and those who profit from human misery, or do take the most in need.

The pacific solution is not nice, but it is the lesser of two evils.

Mellom,
I have two simple questions for you

a) As you would be aware, most Illegals fly to Malaysia then by smugglers to Indonesia and then to Aus. If a person was a genuine refugee, why would he pay a smuggler more than the air fare from Malaysia? Visas to enter Aus are not difficult to obtain and the air fare is about $1200.

b) Why would a genuine refuggee destroy any travel or identity documents on the last leg of his journey to Aus.

Be good if you can give logical answers.