I'm still struggling with the new threat: the viscous Muslim!!

Oh Lor! Now they're going to suffocate us.

A call to arms my brethren,-arm yourselves with....er, glutinous dissolver.

(Makes frantic dash to cleansing wholesaler).

We should ONLY give out TPV's. Why should we help rich Afghani's take the place of a poor Afghani who has lined up at the UN properly?

It's disgusting and those on the left ought to be ashamed.

And all those people who have drowned trying to get here, how does Rudd sleep at night?

But the main reason we don't want them is we keep seeing what has happened to the areas where Muslims move to in Australia. They quickly become dole capitals, drug dealing, welfare rorting, compensation scouring, racial bashing and rape capitals.

Australians hate racists, and intolerant cultures.

We should only bring cultures here with values of honesty, tolerance, multi-faith, etc.

Muslims are the most intolerant of all.

AND viscous....don't forget viscous.

(You know,- the currency is the currency;-don't get too worked up about it..........................,or were you referring to AFGHAN'S??)

I am now armed with viscous dissolver-AND a foil hat-and I'm ready for 'em.

Fester,

There, I've fixed it for you:

"If people risk their lives sailing across treacherous waters in vessels that are rendered unseaworthy when rescue appears."

A people smuggler isn't going to risk his bacon in a craft that is unlikely to reach the mainland, preferably undetected.

We are under NO OBLIGATION TO TAKE IN ANYONE WHO IS NOT A REFUGEE as defined by the UN. That is a person who requires citizenship of a country, the first one they get to, in order to escape the problems facing them in their own Country.

I have zero time or patience for anyone who, having the money and a dubious claim to being a refugee, tries to bypass the established procedure, thereby dooming some poor sod who has a real need of asylum, who has complied with the rules & regulations, to suffer the consequences of their space being given to some arrogant queue jumping criminal.

The reason for this is simple, we only take in so many asylum seekers, those who push in, effectively dispossess those who do the right thing, by pushing their claim in front of those who comply with the law.

We don't need immigrants that have already shown their utter contempt and disregard of our laws and immigration policy. If such people have already demonstrated their view of our laws (by breaking them with apparent impunity if they are allowed in), why do we want them here?

Send them back to wherever they came from, if we are going to be forced to accept refugees, that is one thing, if we are being forced to accept refugees who break our laws in order to push in, that is another. Our Country is built upon the Rule of Law, if they fail to understand that, or couldn't care less, we don't want them.

The fact these people are being encouraged by the continued success of the procedure to continue dooming others while filling our Country with people who have no intention (from the very outset) of obeying our laws, makes me think we can no longer afford to accept asylum seekers AT ALL. No ifs, no buts, no maybes, until we work out a way to arrange it so the system is no longer abused by the majority of successful applicants, there should be a total halt to our refugee intake.

But the sad thing is that the vessels are unseaworthy. The crime bosses aren't at risk, but they have plenty of takers for a dangerous job that pays well.

I'm disappointed with the hostility shown towards boat people. Would they attempt such a life threatening journey if they knew it would give them less chance of asylum than a refugee camp near their homeland? How would they organise their journey without the help of criminals? What is the cost per refugee for boat people compared with refugees sourced from camps? Could the funds spent taking refugees help more people if otherwise deployed?

We cannot take 'em all, but we can at least do something to improve their safety and try to maximise the benefit for the funds spent.