Heres some news from the UN

http://www.unhcr.org/4c657ec69.html

Wonder how many from here will return to Sri Lanka?

Not many I venture, life is too good here.They will say 'to hell' with their roots.

Unless, like Canada, where it is reported that 71% of Sri Lankans go to Sri Lanka for holidays after going to Canada and claiming asylum.

Yep true blue refugees arn't they.

What an enlightening and humanist thinking, Osmond. Your views reflect that of a person with a highly evolved mind, tinged with wisdom. I have often heard several High Court Judges talk and act in such compassionate and humane manner. This has certainly got to do with education. Somehow I am ashamed to read the views of those that want boats turned back, or express fear of their religion (we were once shackled by religious bigotry),dishonest and criminally inclined (we began as a penal colony, for heaven's sake!) anti-western (but we can exhibit ant- aboriginal/anti Asian behaviour), etc. I am certain that these people, too, have a right to express their views as well and valid within that context. I am, nevertheless, saddened that our attempt at advancing the level of real education has failed some sections of our Australian public. There are lots Aussies that support your view but don’t have your guts or determination to make public those views. Well done, Osmond and keep up the good work!

<< Hi Ludwig - while you're no bigot, when it comes to asylum seekers I think you're pretty obtuse…. >>

CJ, this comment is a bit obscure. Obtuse like how?

<< We've been through this a zillion times, and we disagree. >>

Yeah but just what is it that we actually disagree on?

I mean, we agree that asylum seekers are a non-issue in population terms, that we should boost offshore refugee processing, abolish the baby bonus and greatly reduce skilled migration.

<< …I think that we should afford all legitimate refugees who get here asylum >>

It would be good. But it is just so grossly impractical, as it would immediately trigger a major influx and ongoing very high level of arrivals, which would cause Australian citizens and hence politicians to harden their attitude towards them….you know the story.

Ludwig

"But it is just so grossly impractical, as it would immediately trigger a major influx"

Que?

Have you any idea just how difficult it is to reach our wide brown land by leaky boat? Given it ANY thought at all? The only "major influx" is the one that continues to happen and that is people arriving by plane.

Treating refugees from war zones with compassion instead of as criminals, will not make any difference to the numbers seeking asylum.

I can see now that CJM had good reason for being "obscure" about your "obtuse" reasoning against a fair go for boat people. I'm not claiming you're racist but you seem to have swallowed the whole "shriek horror we're doomed by people in leaky boats" propaganda.

Gullible. T-Bot loves you.

Dear Ms Rotten

At the time of the Tampa incident in August 2001, the number of boats arriving in our northern waters was rapidly increasing. Strong action by Howard prevented a major increase in arrivals.

Rudd’s weakening of border policy led directly to a big increase in the number of arrivals.

If we had an open-door policy, we’d have a full-blown influx of hundreds of boats a month, in an ongoing manner. No two ways about that.

I can’t understand how anyone can fail to see this.

<< The only "major influx" is the one that continues to happen and that is people arriving by plane. >>

There is no major influx from people arriving by plane. Visa overstayers eventually return. There is something like 50 000 in the country at any one time. That’s not 50 000 added to our population each year.

It is just nonsensical for Australia to leave our northern borders open and to not strive to close down asylum seeking entirely.

If we accept a small number, we have to be very careful in the way that we treat them so that they get dealt with humanely without spurring an increase in arrivals.

If we accept a large number, there’ll be a backlash from the general community and politicians, for sure! This will just lead to a bigger number getting caught in the middle of a situation in which deterrence to further arrivals becomes very important.

Why you would want this haphazard business to continue rather than to promote a much better input into refugee issues through our formal aid programs, through the UN or bilaterally with various countries, is just beyond me.

THIS is what all humanitarian people who are concerned about refugees should be pushing for. And yet, despite the outcry about stopping onshore asylum seeking from some people, there is nothing like the equivalent demand from them for Australia to increase its input into offshore refugee issues.

This could be a long discussion. I hope you’re up for it. I certainly am. I’ve done it numerous times on this forum.

As a CONSTITUTIONALIST I would wish all those posting comments first understood what the constitution really stands for.
See also my website http://www.schorel-hlavka.com and my blog at http://www.scribdd.com/InspectorRiakti and the fact that the constitution is above everything.
.
The so to say bleeding heart policies are to no avail if it is contrary to the constitution.
As I suggested long ago to Kevin Rudd resolve the refugee issue by handing them all over to the United Nations! It set the standards of care and so can do it.
We are saved the huge expenses to cater for them and once they learn the English language and our culture, etc, then they can through the United Nations apply to be permitted to settle in Australia. And those longest in a camp should be the first to be entitled to apply. That to me is more humane as to avoid those having money to go before those who have waited for so long!