SR,

Where are you getting this rubbish. It is clear from The Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia that the majority of boat people join the long term unemployed sucking on the Centrelink teat.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/end-the-boatpeople-centrelink-cycle/story-fnbkvnk7-1226476061727
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/research/lsia/
http://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/settlement-and-multicultural-affairs/publications/new-migrant-outcomes-results-from-the-third-longitudinal-survey-of-immigrants-to-australia

"The report, Settlement Outcomes of New Arrivals: Report of findings, was released last year by the department. The report's bland title is a give-away - vacuous, alliterative titles for government reports are virtually de rigueur these days. (Think: Smarter Manufacturing for a Smarter Australia.) The results on settlement outcomes are ugly.

Using the Longitudinal Survey of Immigrants to Australia, the research describes the position of the three key groups of migrants five years after settlement: skilled, family and humanitarian.

In keeping with the findings of previous research, it is absolutely clear that refugees fare very badly in terms of employment and financial self-sufficiency. And note that this study was conducted during a period of low overall unemployment.

For example, the employment rate of humanitarian migrants from Afghanistan was recorded at only 9 per cent - note this is not the unemployment rate - five years after settlement and nearly 94 per cent of households from Afghanistan received Centrelink payments.

According to the report, "Afghans have a different settlement experience compared with most other cultural groups, such as having poorer English skills and lower qualifications levels. Yet they are more likely to borrow money, obtain mortgages and experience difficulties in paying them."

Those from Iraq did little better, with 12 per cent employed and 93 per cent of households in receipt of Centrelink payments. Interestingly, those who did best in the humanitarian group were from Central and West African countries such as Sierra Leone. Note that these refugees are the least likely to have arrived by boat."

Not in my name either.

The act of forcibly picking up people at sea and locking them up is defined as PIRACY.

If they drown - let them drown: then it's them versus nature and our hands are clean.
If they arrive - let them arrive in the Australian continent, but there is no need to admit them into Australian society as well, including its welfare system.

Assume they were animals. When wild animals arrive:

* If they harm nobody, then they should be left alone to roam the country.
* If they pose a danger to humans, their property or their livestock, then they may be shot, but not treated cruelly.
* They may not enter cities unless adopted by people as pets, in which case their owners are responsible to ensure they cannot leave their property unleashed.
* They receive no public benefits - financial or otherwise: if individuals or charities wish to feed them, then they may do so at their own expense.

People arriving by the sea should be treated no worse.

Question for Steeleredux:

Does fighting jihad count a gainful employment?

If mean if it does, your high level of "asylum seeker" employment might be right--because it appears that there are quite a few who are listed as unemployed --but are actually off fighting jihad!

Noel, thank you for a thoughtful and compassionate piece. With the honourable exceptions of sue online, yuyutsu and steeleredux I invite you to disregard the comments your article produced. they demonstrate beyond all doubt that there is a nasty element in Australian society whose membership of the human race is open to question. Fortunately they are a small, albeit noisy minority.

@James O'Neill,

True to form (or lack of it) James is all moral condemnation and not iota of argument or evidence.

Yes indeed, SPQR.

James, is there any substance behind your seemingly blithe support for Preston?

So you'd disregard my comments would you?

You’d disregard my ‘vitally important pirnciples’?

You’d disregard my promotion of a balance between looking after our national future and being a good global citizen, which includes doubling the current refugee intake, would you?

You’d agree with Preston’s 'Proposals for a substantial change in policy on asylum seekers'. So…. how could these be achieved without opening the floodgates to onshore asylum seeking?

Or isn’t that something that concerns you?

I would love to know how you can justify your position. At the moment I can’t imagine how you could once it is exposed to a bit of scrutiny.