There is nothing new about this being seen as a political issue, it's been like this for a very long time (although Howard made an art of expoliting it) It is easy to pick out some recent comments by advocates to make an argument but the work many people do is much broader and on many levels. You exclude most of the work that has been done by people over the past decade and ignore the fact of the media reporting selectively on what is being said. Most of the comments you focus on are responses to the propaganda that is spread and it is not unimportant that the facts are provided to correct misinformation.
An emotional agrument supporting refguees is met with labels of 'loony lefties' and being told you are too emotional about the subject. Facts do change the minds of some sections of the community but addressing the irrational emotion of people who think all their problems are caused by a few thousand people on boats is much harder. I wish you luck in shifting the views of people who don't care if 'boatpeople'are treated fairly or not, and I am sure we can look forward to the work you contribute in this area in the future. This is not work for 'others' to do, refugee advocates are simply 'people' and if you feel strongly it is what you need to be doing. Rather than saying what is needed perhaps you could provide an example of how that works and put it to the test?

I have the most total disagreement with you Osmond.

The most humane policy towards refugees would be one that closes down onshore asylum seeking entirely and considerably boosts Australia’s offshore refugee and aid programs.

Yes it is hard for those asylum seekers who have come here by boat who are currently caught in the middle of Rudd’s absurd weakening of border-protection and the necessary reaffirming of strong border-control. But to accommodate them as you wish would only lead to more arrivals, in bigger numbers, for ever more.

The cost of processing onshore asylum seekers is massive. Ten or a hundred times as many very needy people could be very significantly assisted with this sort of expenditure if it was channelled through our offshore programs.

The number of onshore asylum seekers is small. But there is no doubt that the number would vastly increase if we were to further weaken our policies. Even Rudd’s quite small retrograde steps have made a huge difference to the number of arrivals.

If we were to develop your sort of humane policy towards asylum seekers, what do you think would happen?

We’d very quickly have many thousands more of them to deal with. The Australian public would very quickly get jack of it and demand a much tougher stance. Our politicians would oblige and there would be thousands of people caught in the middle, and perhaps thousands more on their way, in dangerous rickety boats.

No Osmond, we need to stop the boats entirely, and concentrate our humanitarian efforts elsewhere, especially on the causal factors of refugeeism and on resettling many more of the neediest people in Australia.

We should be spending at least the UN recommended 0.7% of our GDP on genuine aid and approximately doubling our current refugee intake...and closing down onshore asylum seeking completely.

when such "queue-jumping" refugees land in British Columbia, they are processed onshore but are allowed to earn a living, thus easing the cost to the taxpayer.

Why hasn't the government got the nous - or the humanity - to do that? This also applies with offenders incarcerated for all sorts of petty crimes or awaiting trial, and even those serving sentences. I don't mean road gangs, but some useful productive work.

The same points you've made here could be made about many 'left' issues. Too often those on the side of social justice dismiss counter views as stupid, uneducated, bogan etc without really taking up the argument and winning it. I would say the best approach is a combination of facts (with a strong emphasis on economics) mixed with the more emotive elements that you describe.

This article is rubbish and it refuses to see the elephant in the room:

That is, that over the past few decades we have allowed in, through some channel, many extreme-religious, xenophobic, dishonest, anti-western, anti-semetic, criminally inclined persons, and these were often through refugee channels or corresponding to 'fairer' changes in refugee allowances.

Now believe it or not, many people have a logical concern about this; and aren't particularly concerned about whether they did so through a plane, or that some official, half a century ago signed what seems to be a poorly-conceived document without anybody's permission, as somehow having any relevance whatsoever to this. Nor will any amount of 'emotion' (which the anti-side would more easily stick onto the PRO side) is going to change this.

This bit in the middle was interesting:
"Refugee advocates have assumed that rational thought, evidence and facts will ultimately triumph. If this was the case, we would not have punitive, ineffective welfare policies,"
"ineffective"
Care to explain?

" there would be a land tax and we would have a carbon cap-and-trade system by now."
No.
I think I've seen enough, thanks.
Firstly, we HAVE a land tax, secondly, carbon trading is moronic- it achieves no environmental result, just allows a third party to make a profit on the 'trading' the increased rates on carbon.

Even had you not shot yourself in the foot with your social and economic policies, you have failed to make a case for refugees.

But then again, as a member of young labor, making a case isn't what you people do, so much as pander a set policy discourse to the gullible (and of course, endorse party policy as correct).

Here we can see why the labor party is in it's death throws.

The Australian "workers" party has been taken over by all sorts of activists, most of whom have little, if any interest in the workers, or any other Australian, other than the elites of course.

Perhaps the rapid expansion of the universities, & their academics, & fellow travelers is to blame. The party found a ready market, & large voter base there, but ultimately lost it's way, & control of it's very self.

I can not imagine a train driver becoming the leader of today's Labor, more is the pity.

So we get this bloke. One who couldn't give a damn about Ozzie's, or workers, but uses them to get an income, & a profile. I wonder when he'll be standing for parliament, & who for. Will those silly workers let him use them that far?

We may not need another, but he is a bl00dy good reason to stop the boats.