The parable of the Good Samaritan is but one of many which deal with the matter of how we should respond to a vulnerable stranger in our midst.
Wobbles,
That suggests that those people who stuck to one or two principles & built up a nation should therefore simply accommodate anyone who has no such principles to live with each other ?
Are you saying that only western nations are/should be good samaritans ? Are you also suggesting that those who come here because they can't get on with each other back home should just be taken in & supported ? Are you suggesting that Australians should be good samaritans to the extent where they have to tighten their own belts to accommodate those who will never contribute for the benefit of Australia ? Are you suggesting Australia should just give & not expect a thanks but a decline in it's society due to such invaders ?
May I suggest people who want to help should do so with their resources & go to those countries & prevent people from becoming refugees. Then there wouldn't be refugees & Australia could save billions some of which could be given as aid. Ah I see, to go & help these people to have a better live in their own country would be an illegal invasion but for them to invade us is not illegal. Great mentality indeed Ostrich !

Shadow Minister,

So are you saying that the Coalition had the bottom of the barrel all to itself for all these years, and is now rather miffed that Labor is reaching in as well?

http://www.smh.com.au/photogallery/federal-politics/cartoons/alan-moir-20090907-fdxk.html?selectedImage=0

@Poriot,

<<So are you saying that the Coalition had the bottom of the barrel all to itself for all these years, and is now rather miffed that Labor is reaching in as well>>

What a strange mindset to equate attempts to *manage* who enters the country with "scrapping the bottom of the barrel"!

And ,apparently, not only will it be portrayed as immoral, but if you persist with the "bottom of the barrel" idea that you might control immigration SBS , the ABC & 10,000 lawyers, advocates, and all the other holders of first class gravy train tickets will beat up on you!

I was particularly amused ---no I was absolutely floored!--to last night hear the chief UNHCR honcho in OZ express grave concern about the PNG deal because PNG's Melanesian society would find it hard to accept outsiders (LOL)!

Whatever happen to the jackboot approach --much used in OZ -- to impress upon such narrow minded bogans that like it or lump it they will take refugees --and they will just have to learn to live with diversity and the joys of multiculturalism.

SPQR,

I completely understand where you are coming from.

Those Papua New Guineans enjoy all that advanced infrastructure, luxuriate in the all the wealth inherent in an advanced, modern industrial consumer state.

And the UN is rattling on about integration.

Sheeesh!

Makes you wonder how they'd react if PNG was still a developing county with its own serious issues.

Nice try Poirot BUT...

1) The Refugee Convention is not intended to supply "refugees" with five star services. Although, I would be the first to acknowledge no one seems to have told the (shop & shift from country to country till you land in an affluent country) "asylum seekers" about this --nor you, apparently!, AND

2) The UNHCR honcho spoke SPECIFICALLY of their *acceptance* into/by Melanesian society.

So Sorry that little spin wont work!

But of even more import, I've just picked up on something --a bit slow of me, I know

So, now that Tony Abbott has released his border control policy --he can't wear Mr No or Mr Negative.
And, Kevin Rudd has released his, so ditto him

But guess who has sat on the sidelines --without any alternatives --and poo-pooed both houses?

YOU!

It seems that you are now our NEW Ms No --Ms Negativity
And no more fitting holder of the title has there every been!

Cheers, Ms N

Okay, someone (Poirot maybe) please take me around the back of the shed and knock me on the head with a lump of wood.

WHY ?

Why isn't it possible, with Indonesian concurrence, to take boat-people to Christmas Island, make sure they are okay and healthy, and then fly them back to the airport of their choice in Indonesia, where they can fill out all the right papers and wait ? Like those poor buggers in Kenya ?

Why this Wallace-and-Grummit non-solution of shipping people off to PNG, and from there to Saibai and Daru, and from there to Thursday Island, and from there to Cairns or Darwin ?

Think about it: IF refugees travel to Indonesia, the only reason, more or less, being to get to Australia, then if they were resigned to the fact that, unless they are in the queue, that would not happen, then why would they pay to travel to Indonesia, let alone pay even more to people-smugglers to get on a leaky boat ?

And if they were in the queue* (see below), then they might as well be anywhere, waiting their turn.

* Queue - if person A applied and filled out all the right papers ten years, ago, and person B did the same nine years ago, and person C did the same eight years ago, then there is a queue: A, B, C, ........

By all means increase the intake to, say, thirty thousand per year, capped, on the condition that people have to be in the queue to be considered for entry to Australia as refugees.

Otherwise, we have two possible, untenable, situations:

a) no cap, and whoever can jump the queue and come by boat will be accepted;

OR

b) all those coming by boat are accepted as part of the annual intake, and those in the queue are pushed back, to wait another year. And another. Pity about all those people in Kenya, SHY :(

Okay, Poirot, here's the lump of wood, let's get this over with.

Joe