Loudmouth, I would suggest that, like many violent groups, some in ISIS will be mad, but most will just be bad.

The fact remains that they are unlikely to come here via leaky boats, if they might die, when their prime objective is supposed to include being terrorists in our country!

Would you agree that if they were boatloads of white Africans fleeing persecution by Mugabe for instance, that were landing on our shores because he wouldn't give them a passport to leave by plane for example, that Australia would treat that situation a lot differently?

This asylum seeker fear and hatred is fuelled by racism and fear of non-Christian 'invaders'. That is essentially what Abbott and his band of fear-inspiring colleagues have managed to spread in this country.

NEWS FLASH

I know that I am going off topic, but for all of my friends, I make an important announcement.

Mark Steyn is being sued for libel by one of the originators of the "climate change" nonsense and he is supremely confident that he will win the case. He is apparently being backed by some of the world's miost eminent scientists who are incensed that a bunch of loony lefties and Susieonline clones have hijacked science for political ends.

Interestingly for Susie and her friends, on Mark Steyn's podium is a psychologist who accurately explains how people like Susie thing ( or don't think).

For those of you who are the real intelligent ones, here is Mark Steyn at his absolute best and funniest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEBeF_Rz1MU

Great video LEGO; very funny! cheers

Rhian
"A truly libertarian position would surely be one of completely open borders to refugees (and anyone else) but zero taxpayer support and “user pays” for services used, with citizens free to make charitable donations to assist refugees if they wish."

Yes, however remember that a truly libertarian scenario would mean that all social relations are based on liberty and property and the need to get people's consent if you want to use their labour or their property. So to approximate that, it means that those who support refugees would need to cover the costs not just of refugee processing, but all the other state-funded services that the refugees would consume. Plus they would need to provide indemnity against refugees' crimes and torts.

"If the problem is the dominant paradigm, what would your alternative paradigm look like? How would you would tackle the issue without either offshore detention or community settlement burdening the taxpayer?"

By the draft Deed that I have posted above. It internalises all those costs to the relevant people.

"Also, do you accept that, within the “dominant paradigm”, the humane option is the less onerous on taxpayers and therefore preferable to the current system by your criteria?"

I'm not sure. The devil's in the details. The Manus Island policy may prove cheaper if it reduces incoming boats, and therefore detentions, which it appears to have done, not to mention reducing drownings at sea.

"If so, and if you are willing to make the amendments to your Deed that I have suggested, I’d be happy to sign it."

Oh good. What amendments would you like? Feel free to change it as you please, and let's have a look at it. I reckon this could a goer. I'm sure Jill, Julian, Foxy, all Labor and Greens supporters, the churches, and many others are itching to sign.

I've spent literally years of my life doing volunteer work for refugees, so unlike the posers, I'm fair dinkum and I'm in credit.

RObert, your post proves my point, decent Australians have been told ad infinitum over the last decade, by politicians and the media that asylum seekers are illegal immigrants, cheats and queue jumpers.

We have been mis-informed by people we trust. It is pure propaganda - I know this is an unpopular term, but I don't know a better one to describe the way the truth has been twisted and turned on its head. How is this possible? It is possible only with a compliant media.

For those interested in finding out more about the use of propaganda please look up Edward Bernays, "Propaganda"
“The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.”

Edward Bernays (1891–1995), pioneered the scientific technique of shaping and manipulating public opinion, which he famously dubbed “engineering of consent.”
http://www.amazon.com.au/Propaganda-Edward-Bernays-ebook/dp/B0097D76MG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1436402617&sr=8-1&keywords=propaganda

Australians have been subjected to an concerted propaganda campaign in order to manufacture our consent to the increasingly punitive treatment of innocent asylum seekers - who flee real persecution, risking their lives to us ask for protection.

Under the Refugee Convention, refugees have the legal right to come to Australia by boat and ask us for asylum without authorisation.

Refugees by definition are being persecuted by their government - think for a moment, how would you go about getting a passport from a government that is actively persecuting you? Often we don't have embassies in these countries. We make allowances for refugees as it is recognized that it is not practical or even safe for refugees to all the normal travel documents on their arrival.

Without this propaganda campaign there is no way ordinary Australians would accept people, including families and children, fleeing torture and murder being locked up indefinitely in squalor on in privately run detention camps on remote islands under great secrecy and at huge expense - around $100,000 a year per detainee!

Dear BJelly,

<<Australians have been subjected to an concerted propaganda campaign in order to manufacture our consent to the increasingly punitive treatment of innocent asylum seekers>>

But why would they do it? Why do they want our consent? They do whatever they like anyway in all areas of life, simply because they can - they have the guns, they have the prisons, the dogs, tasers, helicopters, everything to enforce their will, so it looks so silly that they would seek us to agree.

<<Under the Refugee Convention, refugees have the legal right to come to Australia by boat and ask us for asylum without authorisation.>>

That convention is the very cause of their evil treatment of refugees: it requires the government not only to accept refugees, but also to pay their living expenses. Had it not costed them the money, they would not have bothered to stop the refugees, nor would that many people want to arrive in Australia anyway.

That same harmful convention forces the classification of people in black and white terms - either one is a refugee, according to some strict technical criteria, or they are not, nothing in between.

Those who love and care for others, would do so with or without a convention. Those who don't will always find ways to avoid following even those obligations they signed for.