The only thing piling up higher than the tall ships is the sanctimonious left whinger excrement.

What an interesting reflection on the fleet entrance to Sydney. I share your insight into the motivations of the 'boat people' and your concern for the loss of life at sea. It is the 'solution' you propose Joseph that gives me trouble. If someone is desperate no amount of warning about the dangers at sea will deter them. If our only concern should be the loss of life at sea, as I think your article implies, then why don't we simply buy plane tickets for the queues of people wishing to come here at a fraction of the cost of Operation Sovereign borders?

Willem,
By that logic we should pay the airfares of all migrants, I'm reliably informed by an acquaintance from Ireland that Australia provides a "better life" for him and his family so would you reimburse him his relocation expenses?

I think the point is that if the main argument against stopping the boats was humanitarian (i.e. people dying at sea) then we could simply buy plane tickets. And it could easily be justified on humanitarian grounds to reserve this privilege for those from disadvantaged circumstances. This type of reasoning is applied in all sorts of situations, e.g. development aid money go to the disadvantaged in poor countries and not the disadvantaged in Ireland. I am simply saying that these are the implications of Joseph's argument. I sympathise with his concerns, but clearly there is more to this issue than the humanitarian question.

Another "holier than thou" bit of finger wagging moralising by yet another moral puritan who have a compulsive need to always tell us Australians how selfish and uncaring we are. With a name like Joseph Wakim and an attitude of open hostility to Australians, why would it not be appropriate for me, as an Australian, to not consider Joseph Wakim an Australian at all?

Being an Australian means that your loyalty is towards your own people, the Australian people. But Joseph Wakim is probably another foreign import who's loyalty is to his own all right. But his concept of "his people" is entirely different to mine. Joseph is an imported foreigner who would just love to dilute the Australian population as much as he can. 'His people" is every foreigner who like himself dreams of coming to Australia and turning Australia into a society similar to what he fled from.

I am honoured that so many foreigners want to live in the lands of the white, English speaking people. But what I don't understand is why they despise the people with whom they aspire to be citizens with? Or why they want to destroy the culture of the people who's culture they fled to?

And I don't understand why we as a people do not cotton on to the fact that we are importing people into this country like Joseph Wakim, who absolutely despise us.

I cannot agree with Lego's assumptions about non-white non-English speaking migrants. But he is right in fingering the issue of national identity as the main sticking point here. Many Australians fear and dislike, rightly or wrongly, the changes that a constant stream of non-Western migrants would inevitably bring to our shores. Until those on the left recognise that their preferred ways of dealing with the 'boat people' will change our national character and start defining what there is to like about such changes, many Australians will remain sceptical. I think the left owes us more than the humanitarian argument. If they believe humanitarian concerns trump the value of the existing national character they should admit it and start selling the national character their policies will engender. If they do value the existing national character, however vague or ambiguous it might seem, then they need to come clean on the absolute limits they think should be applied to migrants and the fact that even liberal limits will still mean turning desperate people away.