Can't agree with King Hazza in that we already have section of our own community that fits his fearful description, just like any other community does.

Squeers, your position will ride nicely until the trickle turns to a flood. Your idealism is quaint, for now, then you'll reassess.

I would disagree on one point Luciferase, that our (otherwise) social demographic were moving towards a more moderate religious/secular leaning (even our most religious by world standards are quite liberal)- with a rapidly shrinking extreme religious minority. To import medieval extremists not only sets back this progress of moderation, but they prove even LESS compatible to the secular population of today- and thus the secular public are much more at risk of these people.

But that aside, the public should be able to decide what they are compatible with and not- rather than be told they MUST be subjected to potentially dangerous people because a person in power (eg someone who conned their way up a political, judicial or lobbying group to a position to call shots) feels that their own morals decree it.

I think King Hazza is right, and I'd rather be mean-spirited and xenophobic than mindless and conned.

Protection pending "repatriation"? Who really believes any asylum seekers are hoping for or intend to be repatriated? (Especially those unaccompanied children.) Political, or Economic, "refugees"? Fair dinkum asylum seekers or con merchants? Truly desperate or pasture seekers? These are the questions.

What sort of people send unaccompanied children on a smugglers boat? Those who are really desperate to protect their children from harm, or those who just seek better life prospects for them, as well as betting on getting accepted to Oz themselves afterwards - because they know there's no way we can send the children back to anywhere? (And how many of the family of the so-called "unaccompanied" are actually secretly on the same boat?)

The truth of course is that anyone from a harsh environment could be expected to do just about anything to get to the land of milk and honey, wouldn't they? But what about our interests? What should we do to maintain the milk and honey? This whole business is like a modern day invasion by stealth, and our hands are tied because of some legislation by our own government and our subservience to the refugee convention. Not satisfied with these restrictions on our sovereign rights, we further afford access to all sorts of legal avenues to make it all most impossible for us to turn anyone away. Talk about bending over backwards!

We help to try and "liberate" Iraq and Afghanistan and what do we get? Asylum seekers. How's that for a splendid outcome?

There's really only one solution - strict immigration processes, and stopping the boats at point of departure - together with wide promulgation via all media of a no-exceptions policy, with all arriving by boat returned immediately to their point of departure. Malaysia, and others, also need to tighten their borders.

If the cost of illegal immigration was put to assisting structured improvements in poorer countries the problem might just go away.

Saltpetre,

"We try and help "liberate" Iraq.....and what do we get? Asylum seekers."

Deary me, we helped to bomb their infrastructure off the face of the earth. We left one of the more advanced countries in the Arab world in a state of total ruin - and you seem to think we did well.
How dare these people have the nerve to claim asylum - from us! Don't they know how liberated they are?

I like your idea of "structured improvements in poorer countries"...but when you look at your example of Iraq, its obvious that the West prefers firstly to knock it all down as a precursor to building it up.

Poirot, you are right of course, there has to be a better way, and both Iraq and Afghanistan "invasions", for whatever "good" intentions, were wrong. Sudaam was cooperating, although that didn't make up for his transgressions, or for that of his sons. Afghanistan was even less justified. Still, there have been, and unfortunately continue to be, a string of inhumane situations around the world, and no easy solution. Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria... Where, and how, will it end?

One would hope that Tunisia and Egypt could shed some light, but still an exodus from Tunisia continued after the overthrow, and may be continuing. In Iraq, Sunni and Shiite continue the hatred and killing. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is not about to give up its objectives. Religious belief? Or, irreligious insanity?

Some common denominators perhaps, but what solution? Mankind's self-interest and inhumanity knows no bounds. Sad indeed. Greener pastures always beckon, and who is to be blamed for wanting to escape mental and physical abuse? No-one.

The world is changing and has a long way to go yet. Overpopulation, repression, deprivation, starvation, abuse, slavery, sickness, hopelessness and helplessness. And on the other hand - affluence, abundance, exploitation, excess, waste. A bi-polar world.

My principal concern is that we cannot save the world by taking on a mass of refugees, and we don't want to exacerbate our existing problems by any attempt to do so - we already have ethnic criminal gangs and ethnic rivalries, we don't yet have effective integration or assimilation.

We need a new peace movement, from the bottom up. China is showing a way - with investments in development in Asia, Africa and elsewhere - given with strings attached - but if this approach can achieve greater equity, opportunity and self-reliance in all those developing nations then this should be emulated universally. Hope, opportunity and universal law are the salves most needed to overcome hatred and intolerance. Despots have to die.

I thought this would be a funny quote, by a moron journalist "Mike Carlton" that largely proves the anti-refugee groups case:

"It was never a solution at all, merely political pantomime, a knee-jerk reaction to the xenophobic prejudices of focus groups in the marginal electorates of outer suburban Sydney and Melbourne"
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-solution-turns-to-dissolution-20110902-1jpx6.html#ixzz1WxDWqnJj

Did Mike actually just say that the main people who are against refugees are the people that actually LIVE IN THE SAME AREA the refugees are normally relocated to?
What does that tell us?

On that note- to all the people who insist Australia is a 'big country with plenty of room'- are you advocating we send them out into the drier remote, largely uninhabited regions?