No one has yet offered a single valid reason for Australia to accept ANY immigrants, let alone refugees, and especially refugees who represent a repressive and medieval religious mind-set.
So I ask.....WHY?
All we seem to be doing is creating a rod for our own backs by overloading our cities and services, creating ghettos and religious/racial conflict, for NO appreciable gain for us or our nation.
The do-gooders will rave about our moral obligations but I say...to whom?
Surely our moral obligations to our current population are greater?
What is the point of accepting more people when by doing that we destroy the very thing they supposedly came here to enjoy?
I feel the do-gooder attitude to immigration/refugees is akin to those fools who post the address for an open-house party on social media, and we've all seen the results of that particular brilliant stunt!

Dear Bruce,

<<No one has yet offered a single valid reason for Australia to accept ANY immigrants, let alone refugees>>

Indeed!

But that doesn't justify hunting down people at sea and locking them up.

You don't have to accept them, but you may not reject them either without a valid reason. If they cause trouble in cities, then don't allow them into cities and if they draw on services, then don't give them access to those services, but you have no valid reason to deny them entry into the whole of this continent.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<No one is locked up, at least not against their will. Any time these illegal gate crashers chose they can be whisked of home on a big silver bird>>

Where they go and how, or what do they call "home", are none of your business. Just give them back their leaky boats and let them sail away as they please. Better still, don't take away their boats in the first place.

Yuyutsu says "you have no valid reason to deny them entry into the whole of this continent", but of course we do. After all we are the ones who settled it, tamed it, fought for it, & paid for it.

Perfectly happy to give them back their boats, although as they are simply simply fare paying passengers, I'm not sure they are their boats. Still I'll go with giving them the boasts, provided it is agreed that they will be sunk on sight, if they then intrude into our territorial waters again.

They would be much better off taking the air ticket home, but I certainly don't mind.

We know they are not in danger going home. Most of them go home, as soon as they have residency, to pick up a bride or two, to bread more good invaders back here

Come on Yuyutsu, you are usually smarter than that. We have intruders trying to illegally access our borders. We have a Navy charged with turning those intruders back; or if the intruder's boats are no longer sea worthy, escorting them to temporary custody.

No one is hunting them down; it's called protecting our borders. These are cue jumpers, economic refuges, who are attempting to illegally enter Australia.

If they don't want to go back to their homeland they can go back to their last port of departure the same as anyone attempting to enter Australia is treated at the airport if they arrive without the proper documents or intentions (eg plan to work without a work permit).

Add to this, if we didn't turn them away they will most likely end up on the dole, send for their families to join them, and in most cases add to the number of Muslims in Australia who are unwilling to assimilate.

The boat people issue is serious, it should be treated as though its a foreign invasion, and dealt with firmly in order to discourage others from trying the same. Its a harsh reality that is necessary if we want to preserve our Australian values and culture into the distant future.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<After all we are the ones who settled it, tamed it, fought for it, & paid for it.>>

Settled - most of Australia is still unsettled. Also, it was already quite settled when white man came. I never suggested that refugees should be allowed to integrate into Australian society and enter settled areas without permission from those living there, but unless they pose a danger (Muslim issue aside), nothing can legitimately prevent them from entering unsettled areas of this continent or places where local people invite them.

Tamed - did the continent ask you to be tamed? did it even gave you its permission? otherwise, you seem to assume that acts of abuse give the abuser ownership over their victim.

Fought for it - poor continent thanks you profusely for it would otherwise be killed/injured/raped, had the British failed to come in time to rescue it. Right?

Paid for it - and sent the cheque to heaven? Can you show a receipt from God, its previous owner?

Who is this 'we' anyway, which you assume to speak with one voice?

<<if they then intrude into our territorial waters again.>>

Also a "settled" area, I presume? Now you need to produce a divine receipt for the seas around Australia as well.

Most boats were not caught in what Australia considers its territorial waters in the first place: most were caught by the Australian navy closer to Indonesia in acts of piracy.

<<We know they are not in danger going home.>>

What's that got to do with you? Your only legitimate consideration is whether they actually pose a danger to YOU. If they do, then you may stop them regardless whether or not they face danger going home and if they don't, then you have no right to stop them, also regardless. Dangers to cherished concepts of sovereignty do not count - only dangers to real people.

Dear Hippie,

<<We have intruders trying to illegally access our borders.>>

You must be joking: what possible obligation makes them subject to the laws of Australia?

Also, like Hasbeen, you provide no justification for using the word 'our'.

<<it's called protecting our borders.>>

You may legitimately only protect people (and only those who authorised you to protect them), not borders, which are an illusory human invention anyway.

<<the same as anyone attempting to enter Australia is treated at the airport if they arrive without the proper documents or intentions (eg plan to work without a work permit).>>

Which itself is bullying.

<<they will most likely end up on the dole>>

Not unless you offer them the dole!

<<add to the number of Muslims in Australia>>

That's a separate issue: if Muslims are shown to pose a danger to Australians, then you could make a special case.

<<who are unwilling to assimilate.>>

Excuse me? Why should anyone be required to assimilate with you? it's the same as saying "if they are unwilling to sleep with me": if your culture is good and attractive, then others would more likely want to assimilate. If they don't, then you should take a good look at your own culture's shortcomings.

<<it should be treated as though its a foreign invasion>>

Nothing wrong with a foreign invasion so long as it's not brutal, so long as no Australians suffer any harm. May I remind you that the first white settlers in Australia also conducted a foreign invasion.

<<if we want to preserve our Australian values and culture>>

Then you better make sure that they are good values and a worthy culture. Otherwise, they better go into history's waste-basket.