Not all of us who support the current roll-back of asylum seekers are the monsters some would have us.
Not all of us think that free trade is a bad thing, although I do question whether of not we want to buy into the current Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. This US-led initiative seems to have the two-fold goal of isolating China (how can China NOT be part of any trans-pacific trade deal?), and passing primary power into the hands of multi-national corporations.
Not all of us think growing our population is a disaster. I certainly don't, although I do think it imperative that the Australian Government keeps control of any growth. Don't we have a policy of accepting 20,000 humanitarian refugees per year? Making sure we fill that quota might be a good place to start.
And I do not think that all other religions (other than what?) are thinly-disguised evil.
I also think it imperative for "us" as well as for "them" that anyone arriving on an unscheduled boat is treated humanly, and I question if indefinite detention whether in Darwin or PNG can be considered humane.
And lastly, I think we as a nation need to stop being camp-followers to Anglo-Zionist wars of unipolar design. The world has enough refugees without us adding to their number by ill-considered foreign policies.

Have I touched a nerve, Jayb?

>>You accuse me & anyone that disagrees with your view as being; xenophobic, morally and ethically corrupt. That's not insulting? Eh!<<

The xenophobia is not in question I hope, it exudes from every sentence you write.

But as for accusing you of being "morally and ethically corrupt", I would like to point out that I did no such thing. If you would care to re-read the sequence, it goes like this:

I stated that "[your posts] say more about your morality and ethical make-up than you could possibly realize."

You unilaterally - and quite possibly for all I know, accurately - assumed that this reflected some level of ethical and moral corruption that makes its presence felt through your posts.

But please recognize that this is your inference, not mine.

>>40% doesn't mean they support your view on Boat people. By many people you mean about 20%, The other 20% couldn't give a rats one way or the other<<

Ok, I'll accept your word that there are not very many Australians with any compassion for refugees. I'm not sure this is anything to boast about, though.

And this is an intriguing angle, Sparkyq.

>>Pericles, if I pay money to a person, or persons, for the purpose of conveying me from one point to another that is "business". You draw a very long bow by thinking it is a "connection with humanity".<<

I was actually referring to our, as in Australia's, connection with humanity, in response to Jayb's:

>>Compassionate? This is "Business." There is little room for compassion in "Business." Especially if those to whom you are being compassionate to will try to kill you some time in the future.<<

You seem to be referring to the criminal classes who take pecuniary advantage of refugees before they actually arrive here. Although it is always possible that the refugees will be so appreciative of their business model, that they will try to kill them.

Nah, it does seem that you might be confusing the boat operators with our Government.

Or was this perhaps intentional?

Great article. And surprising to see it on OLO. The analogy was actually not a bad attempt to try and get some to see this issue from a different perspective. It clearly went right over the head of most. ("But Mummmm, it's not the same thing!") It is tricky for many to be able to apply principles to different situations, if this kind of thinking does not appear in the early teenage years, it probably never will.

On the rare occasion that I read posts in response to any article that suggests Australia just could be horribly wrong with the way it treats asylum seekers, I get deeply depressed. That is, until I realize how many find higher level thinking just too difficult.

Politicians, know this, hence, the really simple slogans easily memorized and repeated.

Pericles, I always admire your calm responses to the indignant, self-righteous xenophobes

Dear Yvonne,

I only comment about the analogy, not about refugee policy:

<<The analogy was actually not a bad attempt to try and get some to see this issue from a different perspective.>>

Is it the perspective which says that government has a right to dictate which people we may see to look after our health and imprison all others who dare treat us without belonging to the AMA Mafia (Australian Medical Association)?

<<if this kind of thinking does not appear in the early teenage years, it probably never will.>>

Lucky for me I was not born in Australia, so I wasn't subject to this kind of brainwashing in my early teenage years.

@ speegster

Well old chap if we drank the Kool Aid, you must have downed the automobile coolant, because all you doing is speaking in clichés -- whilst all the while patting yourself on the back thinking you've come up with something which no here has ever heard before.

There's this old furphy: <<tell me ...where you get your information [that the boaties are largely economic migrants]>>

But before you even get an answer you declare <<Waah!>> it could only have been from the dastardly Rupert Murdoch and his press!
And still not content you launch a wild attach on --that favourite hate group of all illegal immigration advocates -- <<Waah! what about>> all those white skinned visa over stayers!

If anyone is a clone its poster like you! All of the above have been raised about 10,000 times (by earlier verisons on you) -- and thoroughly and debunked.

However, I think we have a handle on why you are squawking so loudly (apart from the coolant that is) --see here: <<Actually last year I managed a project commissioned by the Department of Immigration>>
Could it be that with the LNP new border controls being effective you feel you ticket on the Immigration Dept gravy train might be up for review?
Waah!Waah!Waah!
Let's hope so!

It is quite simple really.
100% of these boat people are better economic seekers.
They have been in at least two safe countries and because of that are
no longer able to claim refugee status.
After arriving in one or more countries they then decided that Australia
might be better than the country they were then in.
If they don't like Australia they could claim refugee status in Japan or perhaps the US !
How many countries can they shop in ?
This is clearly an economic decision.
That is it, there is no way around that !