Dear Poirot,

Pay no mind to people who stoop
to personal insults.

If people stoop to personal insults the chance
of having a sensible well-reasoned discussion is lost.
And that's a pity. It lowers the bar.
All of our interests are far more complex
than those who insist on seeing all discussions
through a fixed ideological viewfinder.

Hi Lexi,

" ..... a fixed ideological viewfinder".

God, I wish sometimes that I had one of those. No, on second thoughts, .....

Complex problems sometimes have either even more complex solutions, or no full solutions, or no solution at all. Life is full of such tragedies.

With 46 million refugees and displaced persons in the world, it would be wonderful if civil strife and persecution could be overcome, and nobody felt obliged to flee their homelands. But that doesn't look like happening any time soon.

So what to do instead ? Each country should do what it can to make life easier for as many displaced people as practicable. Australia should take at least its share of those poor people.

As someone, I think Poirot, pointed out quite rightly, only about 1 % of all refugees and displaced people get re-settled each year, or about 460,000. I would be quite happy and comfortable if Australia took 30,000 of those people each year, perhaps those most in desperate need, those with least, such as the millions all over Africa. That would be more than 6 % of all annual re-settlements, for a country with 0.3 % of the world's population. Fair enough.

But if 30,000 was the cap, we come back to the problem - what to do with people who want to go 'around the cap', 'jump the queue', etc ?

All people trying to get to Australia have to be treated with dignity, they are owed that much. If a boat is intercepted, the Navy personnel should ensure that the passengers are healthy, well-fed and comfortable, so that they can be flown back to their point of departure, and advised thoroughly how to apply properly, and to get onto the queue, like so many others.

And I would predict that if that was done, the refugee population in Indonesia would evaporate.

Maybe I am thick, but could somebody lease explain why that suggestion, of flying people back, is so out of the question ? Why Heath Robinson, when Occam's Razor would do ?

Joe

I agree Joe that complex problems sometimes have either even more complex solutions or no full solutions or no solutions at all, well said.
Civil strife and persecution are brought about by mainly religious differences, until religions stop preaching rubbish and gullible people believe the rubbish, nothing will ever change. as an example three million Brazil people listen to a Pope who denounces bith control, this creates immediately a problem, over population and slum areas, these pople do not want to live that way,they are coaxed by a white clad man and their own instincs to have more and more children.
A refugee problem.
War, America who is gun happy must always be using these methods of destruction in countries that should not concern them,this causes displacement of people, religious beliefs are still there though.
A refugee problem
Wealth,the Sultan of Brunei and others like him, including our own head of state, believe that God (religion) once again has given them these positions of power over the poverty stricken common people, whose only positive and pleasure thing in their lives is to go to bed and have more children.
A refugee problem
Corrupt Governments where democracy is preached but not practised.
A refugee problem
These problems lead to the safe haven of Australia where we will come by any means, leaky boats etc, but please when you finally get here remember why you left your country in the first place and do not create the same refugee problem here in later decades where then poverty stricken Australians will be looking for a place to resettle as refugees.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I am so pleased that you also believe that we should
increase our intake of asylum seekers (30,000 to 40,000),
and try to help
as many people as we can. And, of
course all people should be treated humanely.

Flying
them back to their point of origin sounds like an excellent
idea but it may be a bit more
difficult to do, unless we get an agreement with our
neighbouring countries agreeing to take these people back.
Also, if they have no papers it may be hard to determine
to which countries they belong. At present as
you know Indonesia refuses to take any one back.
Regional co-operation is so vital to the success
of any solution. Just by-the-way, the Coalition has used
as an example the US Coast Guard when citing the success of
"towing the boats back," but what the Coalition has neglected
to tell us is that the US has an agreement with its neighbouring
countries to take these people back. And also, what the
Coalition also has neglected to mention - despite all this,
the people still keep coming and trying to get into the
US. In other words even with the Coast Guard doing what it
can, even with agreements with neighbouring countries -
their plan is simply not working and people are still
continuing to come. I guess all we can do is keep trying
and see what finally will work.

Joe,
I consider 20,000 refugees p/a extremely generous, in fact too generous. Then only accept those from groups that have shown a willingness to integrate. Media reports indicate some problems with some refugees from African countries, but no adverse reports about the Burmese, so why not concentrate on them.

However your idea of flying the illegal entrants back home or to point of departure has a major flaw. Other countries will not accept them unless we can prove who they are. So no authentic papers = no go.

How do you get around that. all that can be done is lock them up indefinately until those who are not genuine know there is no way in here, and stop coming. According to our Foreign Minister, about 90% of illegals are not genuine.

Taking refugees after the event is dealing with the aftermath
of the causative problems.

Shouldn't the countries taking refugees, demand instant contraceptive
solutions, by countries in the United Nations. After all, we are being
asked to mop up the results of their policies, overpopulation and poverty.

Demand that religions,(including the Pope),world-wide, be over-ridden
by secular government in providing immediate, freely, available
contraception. With regard to poverty, the rich of the world including those in Dubai,(the Sheiks),who own whole banks in America and around the world, provide that contraception free or very cheaply.

China saw sense and turned their horrendous, overpopulated, demographic, around, by adopting the one child policy. Today they have attained a lot of prosperity and are generally not starving.

The responsibility for the refugee problem, needs to be laid at
the feet of the religious idiots that cause it, and they need to be
challenged, as to what they are going to do about it. Not let
other countries mop up the mess they are creating, when they are
not doing anything, to change the status-quo and keep producing the
problem and the sheer human misery.

Get religion out of the bedrooms of the world. It's none of their business, except as a means of growing the membership and power of their churches.

I include George Bush and the nutty religious bible belt in America also, who are opposed to opening family planning clinics in
third world countries. Also on religious grounds. Jeez!