Dear Lexi

First of all, many hugs, as I have not spotted one of your posts for quite some time. I think you will find that women walk in front of men in Middle Eastern countries, rather than Burma, due to large numbers of unexploded land mines. Either way, it is a dreadful and shameful behaviour and nowhere in the Koran does it say 'Women are second class citizens.

The "Anglican Agencies" have a vested interest in refugees coming because they get money from the Government to look after them.

THAT is called a conflict of interests in regard to any statement they make.

To quote you "Meanwhile refugees are being made to suffer [unnecessarily], in our name."

If they are real refugees anything they are given by Australia should be better than what they claim to be escaping from or the tent food and water the UN give them.
NO they are mostly Economic Invaders with a belief they are entitled to get everything for free.

When do you stop the coming after the first 50,000 or the second 50,000 WHEN, we have wasted over $7 billion on only 50,000 since Rudd came in.

WHY did pensioners get such a measly increase, why do we have thousands of homeless Australians but not 1 homeless refugee.

On Nauru 540 mongrels did $60 million dollars damage think of what we could have done with that money.

Has been>> We have to keep these bleeding hearts to be, out of universities, they are mixed up enough as it is. The only safe place for them is in the kitchen barefoot & pregnant. Give them something to occupy their mind & time, & the world will be a better place for everyone.<<

H my daughter is doing her masters. During a debate with me some months ago she said “of course your right dad, that is common sense, but if I took that stance to uni I would be ostracized by the students and faculty……I’m not joking.

Is it not amazing that the seat of learning that promoted the current “social ideology” from its infancy, now pro actively deny anything other than unmitigated consensus to their social vision?

Bloody Nazi's...

Has it ever occurred to the Author that the political parties are implementing the will of the people in their treatment of illegal immigrants? We are about to have a completely free election, where the electors can, if they choose, vote for parties such as the greens that are opposed to the present policy. Of course there are many, mostly on the left, who consider that the people don't know what is good for them, etc. but unfortunately these people don't fill out the ballot papers. That is done by the people. There can be no quibble. Or have I got it wrong, and should all major parties ignore the will of the people and follow the author? (This of course would lead to an enormous resurgence of One Nation, as the only party offering a policy acceptable to the people).

Surely it is time to talk about tin tacks, and detail what the people want.

Firstly, they want the boats stopped.

Secondly, they want taxation reduced, or at worst, not increased.

As for the internationalists, any thought that the nation state will disappear any time soon is a total pipedream, as evidenced in the current strains in the European Union, which seems to be in a terminal phase. Fortunately for Australia such a supra-national union could not be formed without a constitutional referendum, and the chances of that being approved would be zero.

'Either way, it is a dreadful and shameful behaviour '

Hang on cody. Would it be shameful if it was the other way around? Men risking their lives to defend their families a-ok, women walking in front is shameful.

I'll bet if the men were walking in front of the women where land mines abound it would be considered chivalrous!

Great article Lyn.
Please tell me how many of the 40 million refugees world wide should we show compassion. All of them or just the ones that turn up here. If we cannot accomodate them all what should we do with those who we cannot fund or intergrate without turning us into a third world Islamic republic. Or do you have an upper limit to the number we can and should accommodate?

Just wondering what number your opinion as to what that number should be? We could then launch a realistic campaign to get public support for that figure. We would then have some sort of relevance instead of simply divisively criticising anybody who holds a view their number should be a lesser limit.

If you come up with what I opine to ne a relevant figure You can coumt on my support

I personally would support community based sponsorship of refugee families. I'd throw total weight behind a scheme that allowed individuals or community organisations to sponsor people to come here. The scheme would require such families to be funded for one year by the sponsor. It could be over and above the humanitarian intake (whatever that is set at). That would truely allow Australians to show compassion without an impost on the miserable buggars who oppose a limit because of finance.
It would also allow Australians to choose who they wanted here. That would address all concerns.
Don't you agree?