Right you are ConservativeHippie

Australia definitly shouldn't aspire to become a refugee battling Lebanon of the South Seas.

Like Afghanistan and Iraq large parts of Lebanon are warzones of warlords and private armies with the odd Syrian or Israeli invasion now and then. In Lebanon Sunnis fight Shiites who fight Arab Christians much of the time.

Many of the 1 million+ "refugees" (hard to define when many have been in camps for 30+ years) are prevented from integrating because they come from the wrong sides of Islam.

The on again off again Lebanese Civil War is a bloodbath of sectarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War .

Dear Ttbn,

<<We have the LEGAL right to stop them before they get here. Morals are personal constructs and have nothing to do with the situation.>>

LEGAL is relevant and operates only within a society of those who accepted a kind of constitution: outside such a society, the laws that apply are the laws of nature, both physical and spiritual, morality being a natural law of the spirit just as gravitation is a natural law of physics.

An obvious example are animals: no sane regime attempts to subject them to the laws of a state (except some cases in the middle-ages of bringing animals to court to face trial, but they were insane), that is because they are not part of our society. Only the laws of nature apply in relation to animals and morality demands that we avoid harming them (except in self-defence). We are not morally obliged to feed every bird and every dingo - it's beyond the basic requirements of morality, though nothing of course prohibits it.

You are correct that morals are personal. Had we been living in an absolute-monarchy and the king declared that all approaching-boats should be towed away and their passengers locked up, then I could say: "Oh well, the king is a sinner, but it's none of my business", but in a democracy where those actions are done presumably in my name and even by a party which I preferenced in the last elections, it's my duty to protest and make clear that I'm not a willing party to those sins.

In short, what I'm saying is that humans must not be treated worse than animals. We do have the OPTION, and that's my response to ConservativeHippie and Shockadelic, to treat them better than animals if we want, but not worse. If the Australian people (rather than the government) want, then we can create such a balance where boat-immigrants wouldn't starve but wouldn't be so much better off than in their place of origin as to want to flood Australia. Governments cannot do it because they're bound by silly international-agreements and red-tape.

Yuyutsu "LEGAL is relevant and operates only within a society of those who accepted a kind of constitution"

And we are such a society.

Can you name any populated region of Earth not under such legal constraints?
If so, would you want to live in that lawless free-for-all?

"outside such a society, the laws that apply are the laws of nature"

Tell me what animal does *not* protect its territory from the encroachments of competitors, *particularly* those of the same species (as they will eat the same foods).

There is only liberty in nature to the extent that you have working fangs, claws or can run from those with them.

"that is because they [animals] are not part of our society"

And neither are the citizens or residents of other lands on the other side of the planet.
There is no "society" that comprises the entire human species and never will be.

"it's my duty to protest"

Protest all you like, but stop claiming we have no "right" to control border crossings.

"We do have the OPTION to treat them better than animals if we want, but not worse."

We also have the option to say no.
To anyone or everyone.

We are not creating the circumstances under which they now live or seek to flee, so those conditions are not *our* "treatment" of them, but someone else's.

Give your moral lectures to the tribal warlords, dictators, religious fanatics "treating them worse than animals".

"Governments cannot do it because they're bound by silly international-agreements and red-tape."

We can't say "no" because of such nonsense.

Dear Shockadelic,

<<And we are such a society.>>

Not so, because the vast majority of Australians were never even asked whether they accept the Australian constitution, nor allowed any other option within the land they were born in.

But that seems irrelevant to this discussion since you also agree that the boat-people in question are not part of this society.

<<Can you name any populated region of Earth not under such legal constraints?>>

Tragically not.

<<If so, would you want to live in that lawless free-for-all?>>

I want to live in a voluntary society where everyone involved has agreed without coercion to be part of it.

<<There is no "society" that comprises the entire human species and never will be.>>

Thank goodness for that, it's the last thing I want. If anything, the chances of having voluntary societies lie in them being significantly smaller than contemporary nations, rather than bigger.

<<Protest all you like, but stop claiming we have no "right" to control border crossings.>>

You have no moral right to do so, but that's none of my business unless you claim to do so in my name or presumably for my own sake, implicating me as a partner-in-crime.

<<We also have the option to say no.
To anyone or everyone.>>

You even have the option to rape and torture them, but it's immoral.

<<We are not creating the circumstances under which they now live or seek to flee>>

As long as you don't tow their boat mid-sea and take them prisoners. Once you do so, you create new circumstances for them.

<<Give your moral lectures to...>>

Be as immoral as you like, so long as you don't do it in my name, presumably for my own good.

<<We can't say "no" because of such nonsense.>>

Nonsense indeed, which prevents us from saying a partial "yes": "land on our shores if you can, but then you won't become part of our society, you won't receive anything from us, including welfare or a legal status and you take the risk of being treated like an animal in every possible way."

Yuyustu: If the polls are right then your view is very much in the minority!

Greece was very generous inviting people in and paying unemployment and what have you, and only able to do so due the fact they are part of the EU, and supported by other vastly wealthier nations!

We however must borrow nearly every cent to finance the care and protection of so called refugees!

But nowhere is it written we must resettle these folk here!

Particularly when certain totally incompatible belief systems refuse to integrate; but rather, build ghettos that are in all practical aspects, countries within a country!?

And given the cost of actually making a boat trip, quite massively outweighs air fares; what prevents genuine refugees from simply getting on a plane and presenting here with verifiable ID documentation?

Alternatively if you are a dirt poor intending migrant with no money or salable assets, what must you sell to accrue the thousands elicited as boat fares?

And here you are preaching to the rest of us about morals or community standards!

Genuine morality all but compels us to (within our limited means) do what we can to cure the problems that start them on the journeys to begin with?

Dictators/petty self appointed tyrants!

Let's begin with proper sanitation and potable water. And enough reliable water to conduct sustenance farming!

And follow that by redirecting our limited aid budget to on the ground NGO's/local education.

[We who live on the driest inhabited continent in the world started with far less!]

In the final analysis, we cannot continue to prop up corrupt governments who just use our aid to buy guns and bullets to subjugate their own people!

Nor should we assist any type of ethnic cleansing! Which is what much of this so called resettlement is actually helping!
Rhrosty.

The problem is going to get bigger and bigger, armed refugees are likely in the future.