"three activists will appear in Fairfield Local Court in response to charges related to a protest on the roof of Immigration Minister Chris Bowen’s electoral office."

If they were not getting so much on welfare - they would have been working instead of indulging their whimspical obsession with "activism".

Illegal arrivals - those who try to circumvent the appropriate processes Australia has in place to screen refugees for criminal background, communicable diseases, ability to assimilate into Australia etc - display a contempt for Australia and thus fail to pass the character test and should be deported back from where the set sail/ fly out of immediately and wiht no right to appeal and forfiet all right to apply as a legal refugee in the future.

I see the author of the article is just another Greenpeace activists...

Activists are very good at protesting their right to run roughshod over the rights of ordinary Australians, in the name of Activism/Demonstration and Anarchy by invading private offices and stretching the application of their "activism" beyond what is legal and into the illegal

In all the discussion and comments there are some points not yet made.

1. Many of the boat people are reported to have thrown away their identifying documents such as passports. This creates numerous problems. First, the costs of identifying who they are and confirming their verbal claims of refugee status are considerable. Second, the natural question that arises is why have you thrown away your documents?

My view is that those wishing to immigrate to this country should be advised that they must bring their documents. No documents. No entry. Sorry.

2. Those that we do let into the country should be required to sign a contract that makes it quite clear and specific that they must observe Australian law, learn English and limit the degree to which they become dependent on the Australian tax payer. If these people knowingly breach our laws, they should be aware that they could lose their rights to live here if the breaches are sufficiently serious. Less serious breaches might be dealt with by reducing access to social benefits. Either way it should be made clear to these people what is required of them if they are to live here.

3. It should be explained to these people that for security reasons, people who want to live here need to be able to identify themselves. This can be done be various means - photos on licenses, fingerprints, identity card etc.

4. Living in a modern society like ours involves rights and obligations. The obligations require making contributions (by way of paying taxes for example) in return for the benefits (access to welfare etc).

Apparently these things did not need to be explained to the Greek and Italian immigrants of the 50s and 60s who have made such a positive contribution to Australia. But surely there is no harm in explaining them to the new wave of refugees and and immigrants.
Observance of these points will ease the concerns of many Australians.

Why do we do it?

I suspect the main reason is because it appears to reduce the flow of others coming here via the same means plus some cultural cringe factor when we see images of the boats they come in. I'm uncertain as to how much the numbers are impacted by the deterant and how much is other factors. Too many vested interests involved in the analysis I've seen.

Herbert the reported loss of documents is another interesting factor. On the one hand I can imagine how easily I could loose contact with the necessary documents if my home was destroyed and I was fleeing across the world via refugee camps and dependant on a variety of well meaning helpers and or paid thugs for my survival.

On the other hand I suspect that it would be even harder to keep hold of the sort of money required to pay the smugglers in such conditions. I suspect that the ones who have actually lost documents would not have the resources to get here.

I remember when I was somewhat younger all the stories of italian crime gang's, italian involvment in growing drugs etc. Without the foreign religion aspect many of the same concerns raised about muslim migrants were raised about italian's. More recently it was asian's in the spotlight.

Each time there was an element of truth to the concerns raised but the exageration on one side of the debate and the denial of any problems on the other made it hard to address the actual issues which should have been addressed.

R0bert

I agree with Herbert, they had to have their passports when they arrive
in Indonesia, otherwise they could not have boarded aircraft.

They must have sold their assets in their country, gone to a travel
agent bought a plane ticket and flown to Indonesia or Malaysia.
I suspect only a small percentage were under any threat in their own
country and then only from criminal gangs.

Most of those could have solved their problem by moving to a different
town in their own country.

They must have something to hide by disposing of their passports etc.
We cannot take any more of these types of "migrants".

Pathetic article; the author lists supposed reasons why people are against our latest refugee intake by- not actually finding out what they are- but by pulling random hearsay in relation to other countries supposed reasons (likely quoted by a person not part of the movement either).

The answer is simple in Australia- quite a few of the people we are taking in as refugees are religious fanatics and cut-throats who do not integrate- and that being the case we do not want more people like Hilali, the Skaff brothers, the recent Somali criminals to be moved into our neighborhoods.
If a refugee has their application rejected, they should be deported.

The part at the bottom explaining how immigration control = corporate control is all well and good- however, you could simply allow the public to vote on entry criteria instead- thus making it a matter of people power controlling the borders instead.

After reading many of the posts there have been many good points positive and negative.
My deduction is;
(1) What constitutes a legitimate refugee?
(2) Should or can entirely different religions, cultures and laws exist and assimiliate together?
(3) Do refugee's who jump the queue by illegally entering Australia ahead of others which are using the proper process entiled to be accepted?
(4) At what is the effects and costs to the Australian People,
a/ In jobs?
b/ In housing?
c/ In welfare?
(5) How many refugees and immigrants participate in committing criminal offences?
Currently in Melbourne there is a war waging between 2 criminal family cartels of Lebonese nationality as reported in the Heral sun news paper 28/06/2011. Shots fired into homes, and car shootings on roads, fire bombings etcetera. Should those 2 families be deported back to Lebanon where they came from and possibly as refugees?
I am looking forward to the answers and comments both positive and negative.