That's a great idea Rosey, why don't you do that.

I am sick to death of you, & your mates expecting others, [me included] to pay for your humanitarian gestures.

Yes gestures, for that is all they are. If you want someone to sponsor yet more economic immigrants, why don't you do it. Do it privately, because I've payed for enough of them.

Hell, you could even form an association, but one that doesn't want the general tax payer to pay for your addled thinking.

I would much rather see some single parent in public housing than these bludgers. Every one of these bludgers takes a place in public housing, before our own. If this is charity, as you see it, I want no part of charity.

The main problem with your idea Ludwig is addled thinking. Yes mate, we don't need any more people. We shore don't require country shoppers, but you are too kind. We need to cut our intake from any source to give the country, & its people, time to digest the huge number who are all ready here.

It will take years to turn many immigrants into Ozzies, & we will have no chance of achieving that aim, if we get too many more in the near future.

It must be pretty tough, thinking that you are treating people humanely and decently, when in fact all that is achieved is the brutal killing of boatpeople, the unequal treatment of refugees, and the support of criminals. I'm not surprised that people are in denial about this. It is obviously uncomfortable for some on the forum to be wrong, but it cannot be anything like the suffering endured by the boatpeople. Why make people suffer and die for the sake of a Medieval Catholic-like self-righteousness?

The crux of the issue is whether people are being treated humanely and equally. With the current policy they are not.

<< The main problem with your idea Ludwig is addled thinking. Yes mate, we don't need any more people. We shore don't require country shoppers, but you are too kind. We need to cut our intake from any source to give the country, & its people, time to digest the huge number who are all ready here. >>

Hasbeen, me old mate, who’s thinking addledly here??

I advocate reducing our immigration rate from the utterly absurd level that it now is (some say 300 000+, some say it’s down to ~180 000) down to net zero, and within the net zero intake, to considerably increase the refugee component.

Net zero immigration means that we don't have a net intake at all, as the intake is balanced by emigration.

Do you really have a problem with that, or have you misunderstood me?

You are all missing the point.

As long as Australia is a signatory to the convention asylum seekers will come here.

The only thing you can do to stop this is to withdraw from the convention. Then we will no longer be a country that offers sanctuary to asylum seekers.

If you don't like it that Australia has agreed to offer sanctuary to asylum seekers no matter how they arrive, then you must convince the politicians of every persuasion, to withdraw Australia from the convention.

If you are not prepared to do this, then either accept who we are and what we do, or live somewhere else more in line with your beliefs.

Isn't that the point some of you are often making? If people don't like how we do things here they should go somewhere else?

I agree with Ludwig that our immigration take of 300,00 or whatever should be drastically reduced. At the same time we should increase our humanitarian intake to around 30,000.

Briar Rose is morally bankrupt if she has no problem with people who can pay their way here jumping in front of those who have been waiting for a country of resettlement for years.

This thinking is typical of the bleeding heart minority who have captured the airwaves and our incompetent government.

Briar Rose should take her pretend compassion and go live the life of a long term refugee in a camp and watch others with money jump a leaky boat and force themselves on Australia. Facing this reality, she might change her tune.

I notice few ever mention that many forcing themselves on us are Muslim. Do people really have faith in the rigour of our checking processes?

Are people insentitive to the trouble radical muslims are causing here, and around the world?

Do people not care that many muslims- far from all - are terrorists and luxuriate in the killing of innocent people?

Are people unaware of Iran's - a Muslim country - reach for nuclear weapons, the fear and concern this is engendering, their stated aim of pushing Israel into the sea and many other potential evils?

Are you blind to the problems of the UK where Islam reigns large and loud?

Now, many will jump on me for calling a spade a bloody shovel.

However, I acknowledge that the majority Muslim community is just like any other - peace loving, wanting to enjoy the life and liberty to be found in Australia.

So why shouldn't they without fear of their radical brethren present here?

Over 6000 boat people this year. If only 2 or 3 % of these were radical, then Australia is storing up trouble and that is a shame.

It is not people of my vintage who will pay for this stupidity but younger people and their children. But if this is what the Briar Roses want, so be it.

*You are all missing the point.*

Absolutaly not briar rose, but you might be.

*Then we will no longer be a country that offers sanctuary to asylum seekers.*

But that is not what is being proposed. It is being proposed that
we still take asylum seekers, but a boat race for the richest to
usually win, is hardly a fair law. Its a debacle.

I gather that it is possible to withdraw from the Convention and
name our terms, to which we agree to comply. It is voluntary after
all, not compulsory.

The way I understand it, even the Blair Govt conceded that the
UN Convention was years out of date. If the law is an ass, so
change it.

Not just continue the present debacle.