In order to make Australia a sustainable country we must cap and then commence to reduce our ever increasing population.
Hence a balance must be struck between natural births, immigration and refugee intake.
Personally I would prefer adoptions and refugee intake to be the ones that increase. The other options decrease.

The author wants to cut through the confusion but then adds to it, by not distinguishing properly between boat people and refugees, and seeming to imply that it has something to do with refugee quotas. I have no objection to taking more refugees but I do object to taking more boat people, a subset of refugees.

Australia has a refugee quota and there is never any trouble with filling it. Of the boat people that get here the majority seem to get residency, but there is more than a suspicion that they deliberately destroy any documentation they might have and lie in order to meet the criteria. So they get onto the quota. Meanwhile those stuck in refugee camps without the money to pay people smugglers to get here can't get onto the quotas. It isn't fair and, as people die trying to get here, no-one but the greens now support encouraging boat people - a point the author should have made

Henry Lebovic: Learn, too, that it is not illegal to seek asylum, no matter how you travel to a place to seek it.

UNCHR. Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Article 31:
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, COMING DIRECTLY FROM A TERRITORY WHERE THEIR LIFE OR FREEDOM WAS THREATENED IN THE SENSE OF ARTICLE 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Meaning that crossing multiple boarders negates the Asylum Seeker claim. They then become Economic Refugees.

Also: Page 40. SCHEDULE. Paragraph 9. 1. The Contracting States undertake to issue transit visas to refugees who have obtained visas for a territory of final destination.
2. The issue of such visas may be refused on grounds which would justify refusal of a visa to any alien.

Note: No Visa issued to enter Australia from the Country the Refugee fled to originally.

Note UNCHR Handbook:

G. Asylum and the treatment of refugees
24. The Handbook does not deal with questions closely related to the determination of refugee status e.g. the granting of asylum to refugees or the legal treatment of refugees after they have been recognized as such.
25. Although there are references to asylum in the Final Act of the Conference of Plenipotentiaries as well as in the Preamble to the Convention, the granting of asylum is not dealt with in the 1951 Convention or the 1967 Protocol. The High Commissioner has always pleaded for a generous asylum policy in the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Declaration on Territorial Asylum, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948 and on 14 December 1967 respectively.

HL: It turns out that a generation ago, we had another asylum seeker crisis in our region. Yet we managed to demonstrate genuine human compassion towards refugees while participating in an orderly process which helped resolved the crisis fairly quickly.

True. It turns out that these Asian Refugees were, in most part, coming DIRECTLY. They tried very hard to assimilate into Australian Culture. They did not demand that Australia change to suit their Culture & religion, as is happening with Middle Easterners.

HL: the current situation is not exactly the same as the one during Fraser's time. There are notable differences,

True, see above.

HL: Dunning and Kruger explained, you're too ignorant to know you are ignorant, you will tend to think you know all there is to know. Perhaps it's the fear of admitting that Australia has acted stupidly, arrogantly and callously for more than a decade.

I interpret this as suggesting that Most Australians, that don't agree with you, are ignorant fools. Typical of a bleeding heart, Greenie, Politically Correct Nutcase & you should be treated with the contempt you deserve.

This article, with some others seen recently, is one of the best bits of evidence of why we must shut down the humanities departments in our universities.

Henry shows no interest in the people of Oz, the ones paying for his so called education, or their well being, only in que jumping illegals. To him the opinion of 30 parliamentarians in Afghanistan has much more standing that of the people of Oz.

I guess there is no doubt of that when he quotes [if] "you're too ignorant to know you are ignorant, you will tend to think you know all there is to know. In which case, there is next to no chance you'll ever engage with this issue, let alone any other." Have you ever read anything more ignorant that that? Talk about pot, kettle & shades of black.

Surely we can be excused for suggesting he leave these ignorant shores forthwith, for somewhere more enlightened? As he appears to value Afghan opinion, a 6 month stint with the SAS in Afghanistan just might be a start to him gaining a real education.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to "engage with this arrogant twit, if you got too close you would drown in the bile.

This bloke has missed his calling, he should be giving the new subject, "hate Ozzies 101", he has all the attributes for it.

No Jay it does not. The fact is well known that to apply for true protection under the refugee convention one has to reach a signatory country and if they have to cross the world to do so that is perfectly legal and does not make people economic anything.

Why make that claim only for those from Afghanistan who reach Indonesia thinking they can make claims only to find out they are not allowed to but ignore the fact that more Chinese, Indians, Malaysians and people from Peru and Lebanon, JOrdan and Egpyt, Syria and other countries fly half way around the world as well without the same nonsense being spouted. The very fact that not one person ever has been denied protection because of their travel arrangements shows that you are talking nonsense.

Henry should have indeed stated that the resettlement program is voluntary and outside the provsions of the refugee convention. The only people we have an obligation to are those who arrive here and ask.

Just like hospital emergency rooms can't claim they won't treat those who arrive just because others might be sick somewhere else and they want the beds empty, we cannot deny the rights of asylum seekers just because of how they get here.

Stop cherry picking bits of the convention and then misusing them.

The fact in law is that everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution without fear of being punished for not having papers.

It's not hard.

MS: The fact is well known that to apply for true protection under the refugee convention one has to reach a signatory country and if they have to cross the world to do so that is perfectly legal and does not make people economic anything.

Chapter & Verse please, MS. Hearsay is inadmissible.

UNCHR Handbook" Chapter 61.f. & 62

(f) Economic migrants distinguished from refugees
62. A migrant is a person who, for reasons other than those contained in the definition, voluntarily leaves his country in order to take up residence elsewhere. He may be moved by the desire for change or adventure, or by family or other reasons of a personal nature. If he is moved exclusively by economic considerations, he is an economic migrant and not a refugee.

"It's not hard."

That's right, Marilyn, and it's not hard to reduce the quota for other categories to maintain the immigration intake, including all those waiting their turn for Australian residency in refugee camps around the world.

I'm for raising the overall immigration intake by 35K p.a. but that is not enough to save us from even that increased number being overwhelmed should we allow the limitless open slather arrangement touted by Greens, i.e no onshore or offshore detention, no queue, just let it all hang out.

Sorry, but something has to be done to dissuade those departing their point of first refuge from bypassing the asylum given and attempting to reach Australia. Malaysia should be a part of the strategy, IMO.

You say "The fact in law is that everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution without fear of being punished for not having papers." This already applies to refugees reaching their point of first refuge, beyond which the Convention should lose its force as refugees are no longer in flight from oppression, even in the countries they pass through to get here.

Abbott's promise to turn back boats (wherever it is safe to do so, what a joke!)is predicated on a prejudgment of the claims of the occupants. At least Labor's position is that it does not prejudge.

MS: Stop cherry picking bits of the convention and then misusing them. The fact in law is that everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution without fear of being punished for not having papers.

Cherry picking? “The Law is the Law,” as the Grand Visor said to the King, You are right You cannot ignore one bit just because you don’t like it & you can’t make up bits just because you think they should be there either.

MS: but ignore the fact that more Chinese, Indians, Malaysians and people from Peru and Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt, Syria and other countries fly half way around the world as well without the same nonsense being spouted.

Hence my proposal that before a Visa to visit Australia is issued a deceleration must be signed confirming that the person will not claim Asylum once they arrive, it should be on the customs form as well a secondary insurance. That way they can be prosecuted for falsifying Legal Document if they renege & apply for asylum. I have put this to the Politicians & they are looking at way of possibly implementing that scheme.

MS, These are the type of people you want to be accepted into Australia & teachings that you might find acceptable, but I don't.

The leader of the Iranian Revolution in 1989, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, wrote on Islamic Jurisprudence. A two-volume book, which was published in Arabic, was called ‘Tahrir al Wasilah.’ In Farsi it called “Tahrirolvasyleh & another treatise on Islamic rules for living, called “The Little Green Book.”

This is what Islamic leaders such as the Ayatollah teaches his followers. Some excerpts from “Tahrirolvasyleh” which Muslims probably don’t want you to know about Islam:

A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate vaginally, but sodomising the child is acceptable. It is not illegal for an adult male to ‘thigh’ or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his penis between her thighs, and to kiss her. Any father marrying his daughter so young will have a permanent place in heaven.

A man can have sex with animals such as sheep, cows, camels and so on. However, he should kill the animal after he has his orgasm. He should not sell the meat to the people in his own village, but selling the meat to a neighbouring village is reasonable.

Wine and all intoxicating beverages are impure, but opium and hashish are not.

If one commits the act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel, their urine and their excrement become impure and even their milk may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly as possible and burned

A religious decree by Khomeini ordered that virgin girl prisoners must be raped before execution, to prevent them from entering heaven. A Guard conducts the rape the night before execution. The next day, a marriage certificate is issued by a mullah, who sends it to the girl’s family, along with a box of chocolates as a wedding gift.

The complete text can be found in "Ayatollah Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"