*Because Australia does not lock up English-speaking whites in off-shore detention – as Malcolm Fraser noted last week*

I was not aware that they had been arriving by their thousands, on leaky boats with no papers. It is quite reasonable to lock up anyone, if we don't have a clue as to who they are.

I was not aware either, that white Zimbabweans or South Africans
having been given asylum as refugees here. The Zimbabweans who have come here, AFAIK are either on 457 visas, some kind of skilled visas or have enough money to be considered as business migrants. They
patiently wait their turn. This is despite the fact that its been
made clear to whites in Africa, that its now the black man's continent, so they had better leave. Something like 600 white farmers have in fact been murdered in South Africa. Its now the world's murder and rape capital.

I'd run out of posts earlier, so could not respond then.

Hello again,

It's alright, Keith. Calm down. No-one needs to apologise to anyone. My scenarios were entirely hypothetical. Both of them.

Now pondering how the discussion may have developed had we started with the white Zimbabwean scenario first and the Afghanis one second.

Oh well, that's hypothetical too.

Incidentally, a thought-provoking opinion is expressed here today:
http://newmatilda.com/2012/08/20/accepting-refugees-good-business

*Don’t use the millions of displaced people in the world as an excuse for not trying this out. Most of them are not looking to come here.*

Alan, I loved the above bit of Eva's article. Is Eva for instance
aware, how many million Mexicans have risked their lives and how many millions have smuggled their way into the USA, for nothing more than a better economic life?

Why does she think that billions living in Asia are so different to Mexicans?

Some of these academics, really do live in dreamland.

Fact is that the UN 51 Convention is 60 years out of date and has become a great way for economic migrants to find an excuse to slip into the first world, under the present laws. Either the UN should
overhaul the Convention or Australia should pull out under the present terms and name its own terms. Even Tony Blair acknowledged
that it was a major issue, but he also knew that the bleeding hearts would outshout him politically, so never had the testicles to attempt to make changes.

@Alan,

<< Incidentally, a thought-provoking opinion is expressed here today:
http://newmatilda.com/2012/08/20/accepting-refugees-good-business >>

LOL

The only thought it provokes is that Eva Cox has NOT given it much thought!

Us raising out intake will NOT stop the flow.
As Yabby has indicated it’s positively Pollayannish

And this suggestion: “ Fund 8 extra UNHRC staff to validate claims in each of the above countries (i.e. Malaysia & Indonesia)”
Shows just how out of touch Eva is.

Are we to take it that if the UNHCR says no, to the “asylum seeker” He/she will know the game is up and simply go home?

Many of our boat arrivees now are people who have *FAILED* the UNHRC test in Indonesia.

What did they do?

They simple hopped a boat to Christmas Island knowing full well that in every likelihood they would be rubber stamped “found to be genuine”!

Here’s an even better thought-out suggestion that any Eva makes:

"Why does Australia not close the border?," said Esmat Adine, a 24 year old Afghan. "Everyone is coming because the border is open. Everyone is going there and they are being accepted."If Australia does no want asylum seekers to come to Australia [by boat], it is a better way to close all the borders and then no-one will come."
: http://www.smh.com.au/world/survivors-tell-why-the-boats-keep-coming-20111219-1p1td.html#ixzz1scfUPWuR

I see everyone using the example of the white Zimbabwean farmers. Really!

How many of them have been granted refugee status? I don't know of any. Most came on a migration visa based on skills, and weren't granted any special consideration.

Austin, I read an earlier commment and state don't play the racist card with me.

As a child of southern Europeans myself, i am quite aware of the various arguments for and against different peoples, and the taunts and so on.

But unlike you, i think Australia has and still does quite a good job by world standards. That is if we take accoutn of all the policies that involve foreigners, trade, immigration and so on.

As someone who has little emphathy for racism, on the logical basis that all people are equal, I am more conceerned with the balance of the refugee program.

Yes, we should take refugees (a limited number), but we should take them from all areas of the world, not just from were most asylum seekers are coming from to Australia.

For reasons that have nothing to do with race, and more about culture, i do not want large groups of people from one or a few troubled naitons congregating in certain suburbs. In this time when Australia is losing more and more unskilled work jobs, what would be the point of merely sewing the seeds for future problems. We have small scale problems compared to Europe and we should be sensible enough to keept it that way.

Our refugee and immigration program should very much take account of our economic (and cultural) needs. That does not mean we do not take people frpom all areas and cultures. It just means we are careful with numbers.

That is why i find Bob Birrell more interesting that ten of you or ten Eva Cox's. People like Bob Birrell, not willing to rest on do-gooder emotions, have the rare capacity to put the various policy pieces together.