Sigh this is yet another appeal to emotion that ignores the needs of our country and our economy. With the march of technology making the possibilities for employment ever fewer we should not blithely bring in more people that we simply do not not need, most especially when they are going to be followers of an ideology that is simply incomparable with the secular values that are the foundation of our society.

This article seems to have vanished, leaving only the headline. Technical difficulties?

I found this article amazing. If there ever was a demonstration that the road to hell is paved with good intentions this is it. By the way you can read it by clicking on the printable version button.

I have just returned from a trip to Europe which included a Baltic Cruise. Every guide had one common theme. The Russians detested the Germans, the Germans detested the Russians, and all the other countries detested both but they all detested Angela Merkel for opening the floodgates to non-registered immigrants and causing the rise of neo-Nazi parties.

Similarly the decision by the Rudd Government to reverse the Pacific Solution of the Howard Government probably did more to harm tolerance of immigrants into Australia than any other single measure.

To quote Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban “If somebody takes masses of non-registered immigrants from the Middle East into a country, this also means importing terrorism, criminalism anti-Semitism and homophobia. Refugees do not have the right to choose where they want to go.”

Australia now accepts over 200,000 migrants per year but they are screened. That is enough. Any more will reduce the toleration of the nation to immigrants.

I have never forgot the words of a Pakistani taxi driver when I asked him about the boat people. He had legally immigrated to Australia in 2007. His reply was one I have never heard before. They must not be allowed in because if they are successful they will begin their life here by breaking the rules. To him the great strengths of Australia were the rule of Law and that the low amount of government corruption compared to other countries. You will destroy this zeitgeist if you allow in people who begin their new life breaking the rules.

When I read this article all I could think of was the words of King Oscar II of Sweden: “A man who has not been a socialist before 25 has no heart. If he remains one after 25 he has no head.

"An overriding ethical guideline is that we are allowed to do anything we want to provided we do not harm anybody else."

True, and this invalidates your entire argument for governmental action.

Only if everything you advocate, including the funding, were voluntary, would your ethical argument make any sense, and comply with your own ethics, or with Mill's.

I have repeatedly posted in here a draft deed and declaration of trust, by which those who profess to care about refugees, can sign up to make themselves liable to their fellow citizens for all the costs and harm you are causing them. This includes promising to pay for all the costs of processing and settlement, and indemnity for crimes.

If you are serious, look up the deed, print it out, sign it, and post it back in this thread in PDF so we can all sue you for the costs you advocate others being forced and threatened by the State into paying.

Peter, the reason I say this, is because I need it to settle an argument with a person who *alleges* that you are just a poser and sanctimonious fake. I have told him I can prove you are genuine. So please go ahead, and hurry up and post the signed deed back in this thread.

If you can't find it, let me know, and I'll find it for you, okay?

Yes?

That's okay, isn't it?

Peter?

I also encountered the alleged technical difficulties. And are left to respond to the headline. Which sounds like advocacy for the return of criminal people smuggling by organised crime cartels?

Which could be replaced by fly in fly out, high class voluntary prostitution? Not too different from selling your integrity or the nation's interests/security, for forty pieces of allegorical silver?

If bona fide refugees want to come here, then there is a better way than paying a criminal cartel the equivalent of a year's salary to sail from Indonesia to Christmas Island! (A day trip on a fast ferry!)

That way includes keeping the very documentation relied on to obtain entrance to transit countries! No ifs buts or maybes! And given that's the case, fly in for far less than the fees demanded by the soulless criminal cartels that have no interest, than the (maximized) money they take from this tide of human misery! (And possibly the Author's interest?)

And having flown here, if genuine and supported by the aforementioned documentation, apply for asylum!

And to put it bluntly! No genuine asylum seeker, with the bona fide claims supported by authenticated documentation, is ever going to be turned away! End of story! No ifs buts or maybes! And that's soft enough to sicken!

Other than that, all we can reasonably do is ensure our aid program is targeted at economic improvement outcomes! "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach him how to fish and you feed him for life"! While that's simplistic summation, it encapsulates what we and the rest of the world need be about if we would solve the (65 Million and growing) displaced people problem?
Alan B.

This bloke never gives up. We need an even harder attitude to "refugees", who are all loss and no gain for Australia.

Afterthought, consequent on reading the article from this Manchester Professor. And typical of we know best, elitist loudmouth pom. (Or run of the mill nutter?) Who I'm sure, would like to "transport" some of the problems accompanying europe's disastrous immigration problem to the antipodes!

Somewhere it is written the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Alan B.

Old timers disease is obviously alive & well with this one.

The softening is obviously with his thinking progress, when he knows a large influx of refugees has always led to problems where ever it has occurred, but wants us to do it again.

How does that one go? Insanity or stupidity is doing the same thing again & again, expecting a different result.

Toni Lavis

(and others of the OLO punterrati who can't see the article)

When you are at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=18555 just click on "All" and the article text will actually appear.

____________________________________________________________

MY COMMENT

At the risk of age-ism and looking at the author's elderly photo, I expect he would have dear departed long before his illegal immigrant ("refugee") drawing suggestions have effect.

This thread is not worthy of comment.

Peter Bowden is an author, researcher and ethicist & a Left Wing, Politically Correct Socialist Sympathizer. His credentials give him no more credence than anyone else. Your opinion, & mine have just as much value.

< 1. could be the first to show the world that people of many creeds and beliefs can live together in peace. The world has been at war since time immemorial.>

We could & have done so far. Unfortunately, up until the last 10 years Australia hasn’t been under threat of Terrorism. It is now. Why is that? Is one of those groups of people that have had the privilege of being allowed to immigrate or have been taken in for humanitarian reasons not playing by the rules? I think so. What group would that be Peter?

<2. Australia already leads the world’s list with the highest percentage of foreign born people.>

We do. & regardless of ethnicity, what did they mostly all have in common with Australians? Would that be Christianity? I think so. A smattering of Hinduism & Buddhism, benign religions that live peacefully alongside Christianity without a hint of threats.

<3. We already are hugely multicultural. One in five households in Australia’s communities speaks a language other than English.>

& that is a good thing. Being able to speak another language is always a plus. Australia has the most diverse foods eaten by everyone than any other Country.
cont

cont
<4. The photos of the destruction in Syria, of the dead and injured children, call on our deepest humanitarian sympathies.>

Yes they do. It is also a warning not to bring people from that part of the World to Australia. The people in the Middle East have constantly been at War with other for the past 5000 years. So far their Religious Wars have been confined to the Middle East. Allowing them to spread their hatred around the rest of the World is not a good idea for the rest of the Worlds people. Bring them here has only resulted in the decreased of personal security for the Australian people & threats & acts of Terrorism. Something that wasn’t even imagined 20 years ago.

<5. Our incarceration of people on Manus Island or Nauru is unconscionable. It is akin to setting up concentration camps. Also the inability of the press to visit Nauru is suppression of one of the strongest of democratic guidelines - the Freedom of Speech.

The incarceration of questionable Asylum Seekers on those islands is wrong. They should have been sent back to Indonesia immediately. As regards the conditions on those Islands. They are of a much higher standard than those provided anywhere by the UNCHR. The UNCHR should be controlling those Camps not Australia. Why don’t they? Is it because they don’t recognize then as refugees once they leave the safety of the UNCHR camps in the Middle East? Yes it is.

<6. as Robert Manne says ‘Australians are not, in general, redneck racists hostile to refugees’.

Robert Manne is right. We are not Rednecks & just because the Majority of Australians don’t want Islam in Australia doesn’t make us Rednecks. It makes us sensible. We don’t want to bring in people who will threaten Australian People just because they don’t like the customs or the Religion of most of Australians.
cont

cont
<7. Articles 14 & 15: “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution” and that “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality”.

Article 62 f. Says that Economic Refugees are not Asylum Seekers.
Article 31 refers to Asylum Seekers as having come “Directly” from danger. It also states that once people leave the Protection of the UNCHR Camps they cease to be Asylum Seekers 7 are then Economic Refugees. Therefore are not allowed. That’s why the UNCHR won’t take over Manus & Nauru Islands. These people are not recognized as Asylum Seekers under the Convention by the UNCHR.

<8. Greece has accepted just over one million Syrians since the start of the Syrian crisis. Turkey has the largest Syrian refugee settlement with some 2.5 million people.>

Greece, Turkey, & Italy have had no say in the matter. Their Borders were flooded. Australia has the good fortune of being able to stop that flood before they arrive.

<9. The US has also found that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans and take jobs that no one else will (Washington Post,). U.S.-born adult men are incarcerated at a rate over two-and-a-half times greater than that of foreign-born men.>

Oh Crap!
cont

cont
<10. We will have jobs for them.>

Australia doesn’t have enough jobs for the people here, let alone bring in a flood of illiterate people steeped in Seventh Century Customs & Traditions who refuse to change.

<11. The argument that it is ethically correct to stop the boats –as we stop the drowning - is false.>

That’s only one argument & the drowning have stopped. The other reason is that they are Economic Migrants not Asylum Seekers by definition & therefore not allowed.

<12. After we have cleared Australia’s “concentration camps”, we could take in refugees from other parts of the world. A common sense priority would be to take families first.>

“Concentration Camps” Emotive nonsense. I have no problem with that. Providing they are Primarily Christian, Hindu or Buddhist & not Islamic. Although people from South America are mostly Economic Refugees & therefore not admitted.

There ya go Peter, but we will never hear from you, will we.

It’s okay Peter, I found it, you can stop looking.

“DEED AND DECLARATION OF TRUST

“I, the undersigned, hereby solemnly and sincerely declare that I hold the whole of my property, both real and personal, ON TRUST to pay for all the costs of dealing with asylum-seekers to Australia with the compassion, and to the standards, I proclaim as good and morally necessary.

“This includes all costs of:
• Ensuring their safety at sea and safely landing in Australian territory
• Health and identity checks
• Accommodation, food, health, mental health, sport, recreation, training during processing
• The costs of determination of refugee status, including all administrative and judicial reviews
• The costs of administration, including all premises, equipment, travel, accommodation, staff, salaries, tax, superannuation, workers compensation, holiday leave, flex leave, long service leave, maternity leave, study leave
• The costs of resettlement including income support, housing, and training
• Full indemnity for any crimes, including full costs of legal, court, administrative costs, and impact on victims...

“I declare that I cannot ignore this issue, for it defines who I ethically am, and what sort of country I want ours to be. I am activated by my deepest humanitarian sympathies; current policies are unconscionable whereas I pride myself on being conscientious, the pull on our empathetic feelings is strong, and I look forward to the economic benefits that this will secure for all.

“On that basis, I make this solemn declaration as legally binding with the intention that any person in Australia should have and does hereby have a legal action against me in law and equity for judgment as to the whole of my property in repayment of any and all of the above costs, in satisfaction of the values of humanity I have publicly declared without so far having to, or ever AT ANY STAGE intending to put my money where my mouth is.

SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED

Peter Bowden”

Peter, could you please print this out, sign it, and post your signed original back into this thread in pdf.

Also Peter, could you please hurry up because
1. We are talking about real people here under the risk or reality of persecution - not the rhetorical flourishes you are used to treating them as; and
2. I have told that guy, who maintains that you are a sanctimonious poser and a deplorable fake, that you certainly are not, and I can prove it.

So hurry up. Make sure you include your real address for service of the writs.

Oh yes, the non-bullsh!tting part of the population don't expect you to bear all the cost and risk yourself. No worries. Make sure you post copies to the ABC, the Labor Party, the Greens, the socialists, the Refugee Council of Australia, the Jesuit Refugee Service, the Uniting Church, the Refugee Advice and Casework service. Problem solved. According to them, they could not be more keen to support this, and let's put this whole sordid affair behind us, shall we?

Think of their sighs of relief when they realise that no refugee will need to suffer fear or exclusion any more because of the greed, selfishness and short-sightedness of people who just don't care, and are your moral inferiors.

I likey it Jardine K. Jardine

A classic mate :)

A team of Borderforce Blackshirts* should go round to Bowden's joint to witness 'im signen it.

* The Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale (MVSN) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackshirts

9 - Your statistics do not appear credible in the context of Australia, with the low life trash called the Apex gangs in Victoria.

Also in European countries with the amount of sexual assaults.

Back to the drawing board you go.

I could ridicule and poke holes in lots of your points but I suspect it would be a waste of time, if you are deluded enough to actually believe what you have written is factual there is not hope.

You see, Peter, with *real* ethics, you undertake moral responsibility for your own actions and the welfare of others.

With fake ethics, you preen yourself in the cafes and on the street corners, you pontificate and puff yourself up with windy indignation, you ostentatiously demand that others should be forced to do under compulsion, what you yourself refuse to do voluntarily.

Yours is the fake kind.

Being a professor of administration, you have always known that you advocate is funded by the State’s coercive process, backed up by police and prison. If and when someone is tasered, handcuffed, imprisoned and raped as part of the process by which you treat him as an instrument of your will to increase the funding of what you want - what you call a "softening of the position" - how does that sit with what you call your “ethics“? Are you fine with that? Can you see anything wrong with it? Please don’t go quiet and try to slink off without answering as if no-one notices. What’s your answer to these two specific questions please?

Not one comment supporting your ratbaggery, Peter, unless Banjo’s “no comment” means that he is as stupid as you.
One country seems to have followed the direction you would like to inflict on us, Germany.
You should go and live there, Peter, you deserve it, and Germany deserves you.
We certainly do not..

«But you cannot ignore this overall issue, for it defines Australia as a nation.»

Most of the members here seem to believe that it is OK to stop the boats, incarcerate their passengers and otherwise do whatever it physically takes to prevent them from arriving to this continent - all justified by their definition of Australia as a nation.

The author however, argues that it is, for 12 different reasons, actually in the benefit of the Australian nation to allow those people in.

Though claiming the high moral ground, the differences between the author and the majority of this forum are superficial and insignificant: both agree that a group of people, by virtue of calling themselves "nation" and acquiring superior weapons and similar means of coercion, is entitled to claim and subdue a vast stretch of land as their own, a whole continent in the case of Australia, then dictate who may or may not enter it - and both wish to forward the interests of one such group, albeit suggesting different tactics for doing so.

This is why I CAN and WILL ignore this issue!

Yutsie: then dictate who may or may not enter it

Too bloody right, mate, & so it should be. Otherwise, we'd end up with all sorts of Riff Raff. Some of them have already got through the net courtesy of the Greenie, PC, Lattee Set & their high & mighty Lawyers, & look what that has got us. That lot will, of course, deny that it was their fault.

Australia now has a Security watch & Australian peoples lives are in danger. Something we never had before this Middle Eastern Mob arrived.

Dear Jay,

«Otherwise, we'd end up with all sorts of Riff Raff»

Hmmm. And previously (say before this Greenie, PC, Lattee, etc. thing that you mentioned) we had none? thus Aussie-born white guys and gals are all milk and honey, all healthy, shiny, productive, curteous, friendly and righteous, right?

So unlike Muslim Imams who are typical, paedophile Christian-priests are simply bad-apples.
Unlike dirty Muslims, British-descendants are simply unwashed.
Unlike rough-spoken Muslims, whites can only be a bit impulsive.
Unlike Muslim bullies, white kids who do the same are simply keeping a tradition of preparing their friends for adult-life.
Unlike Muslims who are bigamous, British people can only be fun-loving polyamorous.
Unlike Muslim riff-raff, white hooligans are simply adventurous spirits.
Unlike anti-social Muslims who fail to drink alcohol and use drugs, British guys and gals who do so exhibit trendy mateship.
Unlike conservative Muslims who respect their outdated parents and care for their useless elderly, true Aussies are progressive and rational when they throw them by the wayside or dump them in nursing-homes.
Unlike stupid Muslims who give charity, clever Aussies do it through government so they can lay that burden on those few who still pay tax.
Unlike stupid Muslim families who save for their daughter's wedding, wise Aussies spend that money on the pokies, so then they can call themselves "victims" and receive more.
Unlike noisy Muslims who call their devotees to pray from the minarets, white kids who deafen themselves with shallow idiotic lyrics accompanied by loud bang-banging, which also emanates from their cars as they drive past for all neighbours to hear and appreciate their hormones, are music-lovers.

What appears on Muslim-skin as warts, when it appears on white skins is merely dimples!

One mystery remains: given that British customs and genetics are so pure, where have those Greenies emerged from, who later invited the Muslims? Bestiality perhaps? Oops, that's politically-wrong: when white people do it, it should rather be considered as being in harmony with the animal-kingdom, right?

Wouldn't those security control-devices which you mentioned be more effective if instead they were placed on White/British wombs?

The point that needs to be made here is both simple and clear and it is this. To "own" territory on this planet a group of people has to not only occupy it but also be able to exclude other claimants from that territory. Minions of the modern left have sadly drank too much of the "we are all one people" Koolaide and they think that there is something ethically wrong with us giving precedence to our own needs when it comes to who we allow to settle here. They also seem to think that as a nation we have to have an eternal immigration scheme instead of seeking to become self sufficient at making new Australians. We have enough genetic and social diversity as our population stands now and if we really need more Australians we can and should make them the old fashioned way.
Of course doing so is a much slower process than importing readymades but the chances that we will have better quality control and a better final product are much higher when we make them ourselves.

The trouble is that there are only two arguments being put forward in favour of immigration, the first is that it's good for crony capitalism, the second that the third world should be allowed their revenge against White people.
Why would anyone expect things to go smoothly?

Yutsie: Unlike dirty Muslims. etc, etc.

Yep! You know, if you don't like mixing with WAS's & the make you feel uncomfortable you could always emigrate to somewhere the people you mix with would make you feel more comfortable. Is it the economic gain that keeps you here? Hmmm...

I read once that 12.5% of people give the others a Good or Bad name.

I guess 12.5% of non-moslems give 87.5% of good non-moslems a bad name.

87.5% of moslems give the 12.5% of good moslems a bad name.

Does that float your boat?

Leo Lane,
I think I said "not worthy of comment" I'll stick to that.

1. Open border immigration is leading to social catastrophe and civil war in Europe. Why do you want Australia to emulate self evident catastrophe?

2. My family were never immigrants, we were settlers.

3. Australia is not "multicultural" we have become socially and culturally divided country. Such nations are always unstable.

4. "Them and us" has always existed, and always will. Human beings are tribal and territorial. No amount of socialist rhetoric can make human squares fit ideological round holes.

5. The camps on Manus Island are a result of Australia signing UN agreements which makes every economic migrant who gets his big toe on Australian soil to be a
new source of wealth to every lawyer in Australia.

6. It is as racist to call white Australians "rednecks" as it is to call black Africans "niiggers."

7. Good point. Simple solution. Withdraw from these International agreements which are being openly abused by economic migrants.

8. Europe is being swamped and is in turmoil by a tsunami of economic migrants, and you want Australia to take even more than the Euros. Are you insane?

9. Certain immigrant groups are very disproportionately represented in serious crime. If immigrant groups take jobs that Australians don't want, then social security payments are too generous.

10. The job growth will primarily be, prison construction, prison guards, expanded police forces, more law courts, and more social workers to 'solve" the social problems which certain imported ethnicities always create.

11. Australia is a sovereign nation, and we will decide what is right and wrong in our own country. We will also decide who may come here and the circumstances under which they come

12. You are advocating discrimination against young males, and you make a good point. But if you can make a case for discrimination against a group of people for good reasons, then so can I. I think that Australia should take refugees, but only those able to integrate into our primarily Judeo/Christian/ atheist society. Middle eastern Christians would be a good choice. The traditional Muslim persecutors of Christians would be a bad choice.

Well said Yuyutsu!

This article isn't aimed exclusively at muslims, just the prospects of folk found to be essentially economic migrants seeking an economic outcome!

We have had Muslim migrants here since Afghan camel drivers came to help build the inland telegraph! And seem to follow the Sofie tradition, which at face value, seems to be peace loving at its core and welded to peaceful cohabitation! Which seems to be their history in their various homelands?

It also seems worth noting, that the Sofie tradition follows the least revised version of the (original) Koran? Even so, some are able to be offended by the links pertaining to and aimed exclusively at essentially combative cults, who claim to speak for all Islam and from highly revised and reworded texts that are not part of the original text or what it rules in or rules out?

If folk are GENUINE asylum seekers, their race or religion cannot count! But be afforded asylum until it is safe for them to return or apply through available legal channels for permenant residency status?

To then face the same good character tests of all other newbies! Always providing they are able to pass entirely unobtrusive, covertly deployed, space age lie detection, which cannot be reserved for any one race, culture or religion! But for all applicants! Hard to be fairer than that!

And you need to climb right down from that high horse you've mounted! It's not helping; and some elements of Islam have a case to answer?

Nowhere in Islam is it possible for non muslims to simply squat, impose without invitation, without also creating hostile and at times murderous opposition! And it cannot be different elsewhere if roles are reversed! No ifs, buts or maybes!
Alan B.

Dear Jay,

So far I have been impartial and my personal feelings and preferences had no input in this discussion.

Now since you asked about my PERSONAL preferences, I can tell you about them, but first lets get this "economic gain" out of the way since nothing could be further from the truth: Australia is rather an expensive place to live, even more so when one is unwilling to receive government benefits (such as Medicare) and as my income comes from overseas anyway, living here could be seen as quite an irrational decision from a purely-economic point of view.

I like mixing with good people of a wholesome lifestyle, with positive attitudes and preferably with a spiritual streak. Their race/ethnicity is my very last concern and whether they are Christian or Muslim does not matter to me, so long as they take their religion seriously as a spiritual path rather than as a quasi-national identity. I must mention that I have no difficulty finding and associating with my kind of people here, in Australia.

Policies (such as immigration) should be based on impartial moral grounds rather than on feelings and personal preferences. One should always stick to doing the right thing rather than to what seems either emotionally or economically beneficial. Nevertheless, as you allowed me a free rein to [only] fantasise about my favourite immigration policy, here goes:

Regardless how one arrives (plane or boat, with or without documents, etc.), unless there are compelling reasons (such as poor character or contagious diseases), I would normally allow into Australia anyone who has never been a smoker. Anyone who has smoked in the last 10 years or is unwilling to commit never to smoke again, should automatically be rejected and kicked out. OTOH, vegetarians are to be actively encouraged to come, but one would lose migration-points for gambling, drinking, listening to aggressive so-called-music and lack of spiritual orientation.

You see, I'd like to welcome good, wholesome people and reject unwholesome people. Incidentally, you may happen to like my fantastic policy because Arab-Muslim males have one of the world's highest smoking rates.

On ABC news tonight - Hungary is holding a referendum to decide whether they will take in some of Frau Merkel's Muslim hordes, hunting for welfare payments. If a referendum is the way to decide who gets in, why is the same thing not available here? Our dictatorial politicians, who will never have to rub shoulders with "refugees" do as they wish, without any consultation with Australian citizenry. So much for democracy in Australia!

All the ethical arguments of Peter Bowden are fine, but the crunch-day inevitably dawns, when the world potential of immigrants exceeds the willingness and ability of all immigrant importing countries to satisfy that demand.
So then what?
That point is close now, if not passed.
The correct question is; what happens to Statless refugees and others on the move, that gives them a chance to survive and hopefully thrive, when that balance is tipped the wrong way?
Over to you Peter Bowden!

Addendum:
I support wholehearted, the increased immigration of Muslims from the Middle East.
They demonstrate loyalty, morality and an attachment to religious beliefs which Christianity has long abandoned, and substituted with vague secular ethics, such as tolerance to homosexuality.

Congratulations Peter. You are certainly not one of those divisive commentators who do nothing more than create discord.
As you can see, you have brought all the posters on this blog together, so as to dismiss you as someone totally divorced from reality.

Edward Carson: As you can see, you have brought all the posters on this blog together.

Well, all except for ol' Diverse Danny. He wants to turn Australia into a Caliphate.

The position on Refugees that have already been admitted & even those who have been granted Citizenship need to be looked at while we are at it. There is quite a few that need to be rounded up & sent home. Especially if they have views as expressed by DD.

@Yuyutsu, Sunday, 2 October 2016 12:44:19 PM

" I would normally allow into Australia anyone who has never been a smoker. Anyone who has smoked in the last 10 years or is unwilling to commit never to smoke again, should automatically be rejected and kicked out."

Well really Yuyutsu! I hope you don't mean to agitate for this injunction to apply internally. I mean the way things are going a bloke won't be able to have a quick cough and a drag anywhere. Think for a moment what this will do to the State/Federal revenue.

All we then need is for the wowsers to get organized and outlaw booze.

Fair dinkum, a bloke might just have to emigrate :)

//OTOH, vegetarians are to be actively encouraged to come, but one would lose migration-points for gambling, drinking...//

Count me out. A nation full of joyless wowsers is not a nation worth living in.

You sound like you've been listening too much to the religious right, Yuyutsu. Having fun is not sinful no matter how much some cranky old god-botherers like to anoint themselves as the Fun Police. I don't believe in Hell, but if I did I don't believe any sort of loving God would send his children there just for trying enjoy their lives.

//listening to aggressive so-called-music//

Like the drum circles and out-of-tune-acoustic-guitar playing favoured by hippies? Because that sort of shite constitutes a fairly aggressive assault ears. I certainly hope you're not referring to musical genres like heavy metal and punk, which are a good deal less aurally offensive than tuneless hippy 'music'.

//and lack of spiritual orientation.//

Oh. A theocracy then. Get bent Yuyutsu, not all of us embrace your touchy-feely New Age crap and we don't all want to live in a New Age theocracy.

Dear Pilgrim and Tony,

Everyone has a right to dream - but nobody has a right to impose their dreams on others.

What I wrote was in reply to Jay, so just as I have no right to dictate who may or may-not come to (and/or remain in) Australia, based on my own dreams, so he too has no right to do the same based on his.

Dear Alan,

Good on you for mentioning Sufism. Islam and even the Koran CAN be competently interpreted in spiritual and non-violent ways and the Sufi tradition does just that, may Allah's blessings be showered upon them.

I am wary about the term "GENUINE asylum seekers": it's a United-Nations concept and I don't give them an ounce of credit. Given that a person wants to come to Australia AND that they are harmless, we have no moral basis to prevent them from coming: their reasons for coming are not for me to scrutinise - only that they are harmless.

On the other hand, the fact that they come does not oblige me to do anything positive for them. I may help them of course if I want, out of the goodness of my heart, but I am not obliged to and in any case, I have no right to help them out of other people's pockets (such as the tax-payer).

The only thing that stands in opposition to morally-principled treatment of refugees/immigrants/asylum-seekers/whatever-you-like-to-call-them, is this stupid UN refugee-convention and the sooner we withdraw from it the better.

You provided some positive input on how to ascertain that a person who wants to come to Australia is indeed harmless. This is more of a technical question rather than a moral one and as I cannot claim to be an expert in that matter, I am open to suggestions.

Greetings all.

I wrote ‘Australians are not, in general, redneck racists hostile to refugees’

I was wrong, The vast majority of these comments prove it.

It is 'them' v's 'us' again - the cause of the world's problems since time immemorial... It is not this generation that will build a better world

Peter

PeterBo: It is 'them' v's 'us' again - the cause of the world's problems since time immemorial... It is not this generation that will build a better world.

It sure is, & "them" is dangerous. It is "them" v "us", not "us v "them." One only has to look at the European example to see that. Generations of Migrants & Refugees have been welcomed in Australia since WW2. None of these people have threatened the Australian people or it's Culture with violence. The Islamic invasion "them" has & is. There-in lies the difference.

PeterBo: ‘Australians are not, in general, redneck racists hostile to refugees’

No, you were right in the first place. Australians do have a right to defend ourselves against the tyranny of the Islamic World. That is not being red necked racist, that is being cautious & sensible.