Arjay --> “their parents should not use children as emotional blackmail to gain their freedom nor should these children be used as media fodder by interest groups to change laws that people have voted for”

People who have been lied to and deceived by a Government who goes directly against Amnesty International's condemnation of mandatory detention - from their website --> "Over 70 children remain in immigration detention on Australian territory and the Pacific island of Nauru, despite the expiry of a 10 June deadline to release all children and their families from detention in Australia, as set by the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) and presented to the Government." here --> http://www.amnesty.org.au/whats_happening/refugees/issues_and_campaigns/children_in_detention?MySourceSession=dc23e31c884ca8cf99f91ff2661a72fd and this: "Australia is the only western country with mandatory detention for all asylum seekers, including children, who arrive without valid documentation"

We are also in breach of UNICEF's Convention on the Rights of the Child from 1990 here --> http://www.unicef.org/crc/fulltext.htm

Rainier - I am afraid if you read Arjay’s post again, you will find that she/he has no intention of changing her/his opinion - some people become obsessed with an idea, and find it difficult to see clearly from underneath the quagmire - feel pity for her/him

Arjay, would you prefer that adult refugees leave their children or dump them somewhere (anywhere so long as it's not here), while they roam the world seeking refuge for their family? At least then you couldn't accuse them of using their children for emotional blackmail. Even better, you could then accuse them of abandoning their children. So WE don't have to see the mournful eyes of the refugee kids, AND we get to disapprove of their selfish parents. Two birds with one stone. How perfect!

Fiona, Mandi, et al.:
How do you feel about the jailing of parents in Australian prisons? A woman may be a con artist who preys on the elderly and a real menace to the community, but she may still be a loving mother and her children may suffer from separation from her. In this case you have no problem accepting that the protection of the community takes precedence over the rights of the child.

Admittedly a few asylum seekers are not much of a problem, even if their credentials are dubious, but in Europe and America enormous numbers are showing up, with only a small fraction accepted as genuine. Britain got more than 100,000, counting dependants, in 2002 alone, at a cost of about 2 billion pounds for just that one year. This is money that couldn't be spent on the schools, the hospitals, aged care,etc. There was recently an article in the Guardian on how 25,000 cancer patients had died in Britain who could have been saved if they had had prompt access to the best treatment. There aren't unlimited resources. You people seem to be happy to walk over your own people to help foreigners. Most of us don't agree with you or with the position that the world's poor are coming here anyway so that we might as well lie back and enjoy it.

Divergence:

1. Refugees are not criminals. Your analogy is not valid.

2. Let me know when Australia acquires the history and geography of "Europe and America", and we might have some valid comparisons to consider. There is NO evidence that Australia was overrun with refugees prior to mandatory detention, and not for lack of tyranny around the world, or for lack of leaky boats.

3. Your suggestion that I would "walk over [my] own people to help foreigners" is ignorant and offensive. You have no idea.

4. You have no basis for claiming that you represent "most of us". And the last federal election result isn't the least bit informative on this point; the major parties were all singing pretty much the same song.

5. Could you possibly be implying that "the world's poor" are our enemies, to whom we (some of us) capitulate? That is so sad.

Fiona, Its obvious Divergence doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to answer your rebuttals so I’ll step in and give an honest account for him

1. You’re right, I do think they are criminals because and I have a valid excuse. And the excuse it this. I have never met one and like all people who suffer from Alien paranoia I can and do imagine them anyway I think fits my xenophobia.

2. Right again. I implicitly know that there is no evidence of refugees flooding into Australia - but while I can make comparisons with other countries such as Europe I appear to have some credibility. By doing this I can rant like I'm well informed and accurate with my assertions. Never let the truth get in the way of a great lie.

3. When all else fails reach for emotive accusations that question family loyalty and national patriotism; It worked for Pauline and John when they couldn’t justify their racist policies. They resorted to scare tactics and wedging. Calling someone unAustralian always works and deflects the whole argument away from the facts.

4. Like John Howard I can claim to represent all Australian’s even though Howard only got just over 50 % of the vote. Yes Labor was singing the same song as us. In fact they were our choir girls right throughout the last election. They love being in opposition - we love being in power as it keeps our Labor friends in opposition. It’s a wonderful symbiotic relationship that has the endorsement of big business & its often called Australian democracy.

5. Anyone that is poor and who does not vote 1 for the Liberal Party in the next election is our enemy – especially anyone who is a refugee supporter. To be totally honest it hurts my head to even think about the welfare of my next door neighbor let alone starving Africans.

Finally, just remember that UFO’s do exist, I’ve seen them and they took me into their space ship and probed my privates with electronic devices. I’ve never been the same since.

Fiona and Rainier,

1. You believe in open borders so want to wrap any irregular arrival in the mantle of a refugee. This is intellectually dishonest. A refugee is not a criminal, but an asylum seeker who falsely pretends to be a refugee or a plain old illegal immigrant is guilty of fraud: by my dictionary "any deliberate misrepresentation of the truth or a fact used to take money, rights or other privileges or property away from a person or persons. Any intent to deceive is proof of fraud." A fraudulent asylum seeker may easily cost a country far more money than someone who pretends to be collecting for a charity.

2. It is dishonest to compare the asylum seeker situation now with the situation during the Cold War. People smuggler networks are international in scope and even charter ships to take their charges across the Pacific to the US. You are effectively saying that Australia is some sort of Magic Kingdom where everything always comes out right, completely different from almost all other developed country. This is an extraordinary claim and demands extraordinary proof.

3. It is a bit rich for a person who has had a post banned for flaming to claim to be offended. I am merely doing the courtesy of assuming that you are intelligent enough to understand the consequences of what you open borders people are asking for. Enormous disparities of wealth don't exist within countries, because people move to where the opportunities are. Environmental footprint is a rough proxy for living standards. From the Redefining Progress site Australia's is about 7 hectares, the US 9.5, Norway about 8, the European average around 5, and Japan is around 4. The world average is 2.3 hectares, below the footprint of Mexico, and the sustainable capacity per person around 1.7 hectares. Effectively, open borders means condemning millions of your fellow Australians to abject poverty

4 .The "Labour" party undoubtedly checked its policy with focus groups. By the way, I am a woman and not a Liberal voter.