As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view that we should stop this rot and finally hand over all refugees/asylum seekers/over-stayers to the UN so there will be one world wide body that can deal with all of them anywhere in the world and have them in UN-refugee centres to orderly deal with their placements from the time they arrived. Those travelling to Australia will discover it to be then a waste of time because the UN can have them placed anywhere in the world. We must not allow any refugee to dictate Australians that we have to take them and this is really what is happening now by those paying people smugglers while others waiting for years in camps are left to rot. That is not humanitarian consideration at all! Constitutionally the laws of Australia are to benefit Australians first and we should not have foreigners dictating our rights and occupy our courts. We have more then 7,000 young invalids in old age care homes and we could spend the money better to care for them more appropriately.
Let the UN sort out refugee issues and then if the UN request placements then and only then should we deal with if they are suitable or not to be accepted.

If we can have controlled refugee system then when refugees are held in a camp and those longest in the camp will be the first eligible for placement, then we can also seek to ensure that those who desire to come to Australia are showing a willingness to learn what Australia is about and also the language. As such, the Federal government could provide lessons about Australia in those UN camps for people considering to live in Australia and as such learn the language in the process also. Further, they need to learn that moving to Australia many of their native customs and traditions may not be permitted to be practised in Australia, being it honour killings and the likes. What we therefore would achieve is to get people migrating who have shown a certain degree of effort to learn about their future homeland and to be willing to assimilate into Australian’s way of life and not come here to seek to get a safe heaven for themselves only to turn Australia in some criminal hot bed because they haven’t got a clue what Australians customs and traditions are. As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I am too aware that the Framers of the Constitution specifically legislated for the Commonwealth to control immigration and if it is done wisely we all can benefit of it. The so called “economic refugees” are not interested in our rights and needs! The moment we allow others to dictate their intake we have lost the plot. And others then will follow likewise and we will get swamped by undesirable whereas if we do desire to do it for humanitarian reasons then let’s go for those longest in refugee camps and send all other back to a refugee camp so they have to await their turn.

Boaz: << as soooon as they hit Australia's shores they are *instantly* transformed into idealistic, benign, utopians who will do nothing but pursue their newly found 'fair go' and never ever demonstrate against our foreign or migration policy >>

I believe that's called a strawman argument, Boaz. Nobody but you has the expectation that immigrants of any description should be "idealistic, benign utopians". They just have to obey our laws.

Custard: << these people aren't refugees according to the UN definition >>

Bollocks. Over 90% of asylum seekers who arrive by boat are found to be bona fide refugees under the UN convention. Telling a lie repeatedly doesn't make it any truer, you know.

It should be understood that whatever provisions the UN may have doesn’t override our constitutional provisions or limitations! Indeed, the Framers of the Constitution made this clear when inserting s.51(xxvi), and also stated:
.
Hansard 17-4-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE Mr. SYMON:
There can be no doubt as to the position taken up by Mr. Carruthers, and that many of the rules of the common law and rules of international comity in other countries cannot be justly applied here.
END QUOTE
.
As such, the UN cannot dictate us anything!
.
HANSARD 9-9-1897 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE The Right Hon. G.H. REID:
The treaties made by her Majesty are not binding as laws on the people of the United Kingdom, and there is no penalty for disobeying them. Legislation is sometimes passed to give effect to treaties, but the treaties themselves are not laws, and indeed nations sometimes find them inconvenient, as they neglect them very seriously without involving any important legal consequences.
END QUOTE
.
As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I view we should act within our constitutional framework!

Mr. Gerritt,
Do you have any knowledge of the UN treaties we have agreed to but have or have not legislated for?

I find it very interesting what you say and it seems we should do far more to educate ourselves about our constitution.