Another chapter in Guy Goodwin-Gill's campaign to sanctify the rights of religious fundamentalists.
The writings of a predaroty wolf camouflaged by a flag of humanitarianism.
A further plea for the continuation of existing rights vested in the Vatican, in the bible belt of the USA, and in like-minded Australian politicains, to deny women of the world the option of controlling their own fertility.
Has he no compassion?

It would take a mobile army of all nations to be sent to places where refugees have their backs to the wall, to settle disputes and actions by despots.
It would take more goodwill that has ever been shown by any race.
Until then, the pressure of "refugees" will be placed on the backs of western nations who ,having signed treaties , are obliged to take on the world's deperate,poor, needy plus the opportunistic and greedy.

Once again, Ladies and gentlemen, once again. A person who wishes to solve the world’s overpopulation problem by having every Third World misfit immediately buy a boat ticket to Australia, lifts his tattered banner from the mud and lurches forward to march again for his lost cause.

When people who think like Guy Goodwin Gill start raving on about “ends commensurate with human worth and dignity”, you had better go and hide your wallet.

Mr Goodwin-Gill (oh gawd, those double bunger mouthfuls of names sound so-o-o pretentious), also thinks that Military action should be used against states that create refugees. I wonder what Greenpeace would make of declaring a crusade on behalf of refugees? Is starting a war now politically correct?

Onward Greenpeace soldiers, rightousness has won.
Youth and trust both make you, easiest to con.
[Deleted for profanity]

There is one other little matter that Mr Goodwin-Dill has not thought of. If the UN were to “intervene” on behalf of the Tutsi’s in Rwanda, what will we do when the Hutu’s say “thank you” and then return the compliment to the Tutsi’s? Invade the place again?

What is it like down in the garden with the fairies, Greg?

We all saw what happened in Somalia when the UN intervened against the Somali warlords to stop the entire Somalian population from starving to death. The starving Somali’s sided with the warlords who were starving them to death. Is the world stupid enough to go through that farce again? Greg Goodwin-Gill apparently thinks so. But I doubt if the Yanks will allow themselves to get sucked into another UN declared fiasco where they get to save the lives of less than grateful millions who show their appreciation by dragging dead US helicopter pilots around by their heels.

Unsurprisingly, Greg finally gets around to that hoary old todge of “human rights’. The only human right that Greg is unconcerned about is the fundamental right of every nation to decide who crosses it’s borders.

redneck

Hear, hear for your final sentence.
Cheers
Kay

• If this forum is as good as Australian social and political comment gets then we are truly up the creek. Australian progress and democracy can only rely on the intellectual and humanitarian capacities of those it serves.

Hi, redneck!

I am sure that lots of posters would love to read the rest of your Greenpeace ditty that was censored. Do you have an email address that I can contact you on?

Another idea would be to re-post the ditty with asterisks in the right places. I am sure the more intelligent posters could work it out.

@redneck
People like will never learn
http://www.socialistaction.org/news/199904/namibia.html

Genocide
bosnia
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1995_hr/genocideinbosnia.html

The Armenian
http://www.theforgotten.org/intro.html

Hindu genocide
,http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/modern/hindu_bangla.html

Tibet genocide
http://www.fatherryan.org/holocaust/Tibet/history.htm

Cambodia genocide
http://www.ppu.org.uk/genocide/g_cambodia.html

muslim genocide in india
http://www.geocities.com/understandinghinduism/muslims-genocide-india.html

Native Americans had African American slaves as well as Europeans,
http://www.aaanativearts.com/article1260.html
http://www.gbgm-umc.org/cooksonhillscenter/the_cherokee.htm

then theres the Holocaust cared out by your beloved Hitler.It happens ever where.

To Mr Amel.

And your point is....?

To Joh. Hi Joe, I thought you were dead. I loved it when you said "If the black African countries do not want to come to Queensland for the Commonwealth Games, we won't miss them." And "The aborigines can demonstrate 'till their black in the face, their not getting any land rights in Queensland"

You are pretty witty yourself, Joh. Must be from eating Flo's scones.

I better not repost what I wrote because I have already been banned once before from OLO. But I suppose I can say that it was a naughty ryme on Senator Stott Destoya.

It went

"Senator "Stott Destroyer", helps you leave strong willed.
Promises you will go to heaven, if perchance your killed."

And don't you worry about that.

Leave dysfunctional countries to sort out their own problems, and let's stop importing "refugees" or any people who do not fit the Western cultural mold. Europeans are committing cultural suicide. By the end of this century, white people will be the minority, thanks to low birth rates and the silly idea that we can be 'nice' to non-Westerners because we are superior and we will always prevail. The world is going to be turned on its head, with Europe (where it is well under way already)and other white countries feeling what it is like to be colonised.

Yes Amel..what was your point ? I can think of one

"All have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God"

seems rather appropriate.

Regarding refugees. I wonder what those who seem to advocate a more open policy have to say about world realities, which seem to suddenly not exist as soon as ones brain crosses the Australian national border. Its like 'brain death' suddenly to all that people do to people in the rest of the world.

The Author says:

"A “law-based” approach to international protection already exists, beginning with the 1951 Convention and other relevant treaties. And while protection is often wider than rights, it still begins with rights which ought to permeate the whole.
It is here, on the solid foundation of rights, that a truly protecting agency must make its stand and prove its worth."

Now that is the point "rights" where my poor brain explodes.
Where do they come from ? ummmmm unless you believe in God there IS NO SUCH THING as 'rights' The best you can hope for is 'privileges' based on your relationship to those holding power.

Even if half the world agrees that 'this' and 'that' are 'rights' -if the other half disagrees, then they are not worth squat !

The idea that certain 'rights' are self evident is just codswallop.
They may be evident to you, but not to Joe bloggs or Gengis Khan.
Or to the Caliph who will tell you your rights are guided by Sharia law.

There is ANOTHER aspect to 'rights' and that is the 'right' of a sovereign people to maintain that soveriegnty ! Free from the intrusive threat of opportunistic 'others'.

If we don't treat this issue with even handedness and balance, it will degenerate into 'right/left' political slanging.

'Australian progress and democracy can only rely on the intellectual and humanitarian capacities of those it serves.' Quoted rainier.
Well I wish we could get migrants who fitted such wonderful criteria as the above, instead of the steady stream of the unassimilatable, the unemployable and the plain dangerous that are flooding into our cities where ethnic gangs are making life unbearable for the residents.

Gosh, I thought this was written by Greg Barns, or Andrew Bartlett. Bet the polies, beaurucrats and academic PC's take notice of Guy S. Goodwin-Gill, rather than the people. Like redneck, I love those hyphenated names, a indication of the dysfunctional and warped. Why do these brain dead people want to remove borders, they must surely be totally bereft of anything other than their names and religious commercial interests they represent

Like others, I believe we should shut our borders to everyone until we have sorted out the growing mess we have here. Has any one noticed that if you are islamic, you are entitled to have as many wifes as you like in this country and are entitled to welfare payments for all of them. Sounds like we have already begun to give up our ways in deference to fundamentalist religious priorities. What pathetic women those fools must be.

Just look at the number of left wing articles on this site,and it eminates predominately left wing Education system that likes to live in it's comfort zone.Perhaps the right wing doers are too busy making the economy work and don't have time to contemplate their navels because their taxes have to support this nonsense.

I was listening to Philip Clark on 2GB the other day who was interviewing a representitive from the Sudanese Community because they were becoming a problem in Blacktown in terms of theft and violence.This rep said that the Govt needs to do more for the community.They can't speak English,don't know how to use a telephone and thus can't get jobs because they have no skills.Well Philip Clark said we need fruit pickers in the country,why don't they go there.The Rep said"Well many of these people are warriors and don't fit that job discription." Implying that it would be beneath their dignity to accept such a lowly job.He also implied that the Sudanese didn't know that it was wrong to steal in Australia.So Philip being very astute says,"So theft is legal in Sudan?" "Oh no,no,you cannot steal in Sudan." Philip also said that being warriors, why aren't they playing for Auckland.

Really what a joke.Perhaps being warriors they could practise some skippy bashing like some other disfunctionals we have invited into our community.
So if the rest of the world over populates itself to an orgy of violence and depravity,but somehow it is all Australia's fault and responsibility.Well continue in this vein, and we will become exactly like them.

Hi, redneck,

I am glad you appreciate my namesake's utterances. One of my favourites was in 1975 when Senator Bert Milliner died and Joh said:

"I consider that this was a genuine death, not a contrived death, and so a Labor man should replace him."

However my favourite comment of all came from Piggy Muldoon, who advised the President of Nigeria to consult a taxidermist. Piggy was also the one, who when asked to comment on the exodus of people from NZ to Australia said that he was in favour of because it raised the IQ of both countries.

Back to the subject of refugees, I fail to see how the fact that everyone has an equal right to dignity and worth gives them any right to enter Australia without our permission. Most of the exponents of unlimited access are internationalists who would like to break down borders and have the whole world ruled by the UN Committee on Human Rights, which is staffed by some of the most horrendous regimes in the world.

BOAZ_David - Regarding rights, surely it is just and fair (and I would have thought the Christian way) that everyone should have the right to be free from torture and persecution. You and other posters here seem to think that rights somehow belong to those in the West and that the rest of the world is undeserving of such an entitlement.

You state - "There is ANOTHER aspect to 'rights' and that is the 'right' of a sovereign people to maintain that soveriegnty ! Free from the intrusive threat of opportunistic 'others'."

What hypocrisy to claim that we have the right to control our borders and yet at the same time we should be free to trample all over the rights of others to do the same. Millions of Iraqis and Afghanis would I'm sure have liked to have been able to control their borders and thus have prevented the US-led invasion of their countries.

If you are fair and honest you should at least admit that we have an obligation to assist the refugees that we, as part of the 'coalition-of-the-willing', helped create.

Allowing a few thousand refugees a year to settle permanently in our country is not in any way going to lead to the doomsday scenarios some of you are hysterically alluding to.

Our future security depends on Australia being able to build good will within the region. Treating legitimate asylum seekers like criminals and deporting them back to danger and death is hardly likely to be viewed as neighbourly.

To Ms. Bronwyn

No hypocrisy at all.

If unelected governments in Iraq and Afghanistan are creating a flood of "refugees" to OUR society, that is sufficient justification in declaring war against those governments. Ironically, that is what Greg (mouthfull of name) said in the topic header. If you don't agree with him, then take the matter up with Greg. He is preaching the same line about refugees as you. So, it is incumbent upon you to do the Inquisition thing about his political heresy before you start pulling out the fingernails of us political pagans.

Once again, you imply that no government has the right to prevent people from crossing it's borders. The overwhelming majority of people would shake their heads in pitying wonder at you and your comrades for that one. Does it bother you when everybody laughs at your wacky premises?

As far as I and so many other posters on this forum are concerned, the protection of our own people, within our own country, is the highest morality. The protection of our own community is our people's pre eminent right. It takes precedence over any non Australian's "right". Inequality is the entire basis of the concepts of "citizenship" and "non citizenship."

Tell me Bronnie. How did you develop this hatred for your own people? Why is it that you consider the welfare of every other person in the world to be more important than the peacefull functioning of your own society?

I am not being sarcastic, this is a genuine thirst for knowledge.

Are western countries expected to take full responsibility for the world's woes? How about a little responsibilty on the part of 'third worlders' (by that I mean non-western countries).

If there is no need for national borders, then in a similar vein, there is no need for a fence on our house block. Come to think of it, there would be no need for even a door at the entry!

Just about anyone from a non-developed country can claim asylum. That is, billions of people. I can't help to think refugee advocates have a sinister agenda.

Western people have rights only because we fought for them. Our rights were not bestowed on us. If non-Westerners want the same rights they have to look at why we have those rights, and fight for the same democratic system and right to be heard that we have.

Australia does not have to fight for the rights of other people. The UN is supposed to be doing that, but it is not. The UN’s only ‘contribution’ has been to get as many Third World losers as possible into Western countries where they are culturally and socially incompatible with the host populations. The bulk of people without rights stay on in their own countries and do nothing to help themselves. Rights cannot be gained in totalitarian countries by bringing refugees to Australia.

Goodwin-Gill’s first option – help people in situ – is the only rational and useful way. But it still not particularly Australia’s problem or duty, although we may be able to assist a properly functioning UN in accordance with our resources.

People such as Bronwyn are merely projecting their feelings of superiority (even though they mean well) by insisting that we should be taking refugees. Equality and human dignity demand that people in Third World countries get off their backsides and do something to improve their conditions if they don’t like what they are enduring. They have to it on their own because Bronwyn and other refugee advocates have made it very clear that we, as part of a Coalition, shouldn’t be in Iraq and should never have entered Iraq.

Frankly, the real ‘hypocrites’ are these refugee advocates whose consciences are assuaged by bringing a few people into Australia while most of their countrymen are left at home to suffer despotism.

I don’t altogether agree or disagree with the essay in question, he makes a point of view and other essay writers have made contrary ones. If we live in a democracy and believe in it then we should WELCOME reasoned and mature debate around important national issues - such as how to cope with growing refugee numbers.

Having strong political views should not be a problem. In a pluralist society we should expect that and appreciate diversity of opinion and be prepared to weigh in to debate with INTELLIGENCE.

After all, Wester civilisation developed through a history of dialectic debate - a challenging discourse between strong opposites.

Okay… most of the essay writers, both those leaning toward the left and the right, present reasoned arguments. I disagree with various bits of them. But a much more serious issues is the flurry of intemperate, carping, often abusive commentaries that follow in the wake of many well-spoken essays.

Hate-filled intolerance is not the hallmark of a mature democracy, and, sadly, it is not in keeping with Australia’s tradition of giving all a fair go – in fact, it’s very un-Australian.

Hard core racist sentiment has arisen in recent times, perhaps predictably in the light of international events, but much more worrying is the general lurch towards anti-democratic sentiments and meanness of spirit.

Those who want the Australian traditional lifestyle to be preserved should, above all, be defending democratic values, pluralist opinion, the right to be heard and intelligent debate – not engaging in the opposite

The notion of a 'fair go' is well and truly used and abused by the anti-racist industry. It is kind of a loaded word along with 'tolerance' and 'compassion' to pursue the failed idea of a world without borders.

Gecko who exactly are you talking to? Where is the 'hate filled' intolerance you mentioned in your response in this thread?

You value intelligence, of what nature exactly? Because some people (Guy PERHAPS) are intelligent acedemically, but clueless in every other aspect of life!

I speak from common sense: refugees should always be placed into a culture similar to their own. Our multicultural 'tolerance' is finite, and its misuse will lead to social instabilty. Cronulla?

gecko

You raise some interesting points, especially the notion of tolerance.

There are members of my family who do not deserve my tolerance - even so, I appear (to others) to tolerate them. I do this for family harmony (if it can ever happen in our family).

I guess I apply the same principle in the broader community. I am not proud of that.

Before I became Internet friendly in Forums such as this, I always said what I really thought. I still do to some extent, but I am more careful now because the regular abusive posters on OLO (all threads) on whatever issue would have my guts for garters. I am not here to be abused. I am here to learn. And by golly, learn I do.

Cheers
Kay

Dear Bronwyn.

your points.

1/ "Everyone should be free from torture and persecution".

Totally agree ! and hence we sent a coalition of the willing to liberate a country in the grip of a master torturer and mass murderer. You have probably noted the 'cost' in human damage of such an exercise. So, am I right in assuming that setting people free means liberating them or... just letting those who perpetrate such things continue on their merry way as Sadaam was ?
Of course the 'other' solution is to open our borders to every persecuted person in the world. Is that what u want ?
No.. you want 'a few thousand refugees able to come here'.

2/ Refugee Acceptance
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/03/23/1079939629400.html
Please check this link, we previously took 4000/yr, now it will be SIX thousand/yr and we both know that will not put the slightest dent in the overall problem, (neither would 50,000), which can only be fixed by ripping out by the roots, those regimes causing the problem i.e. MILITARY action. Please support your soldiers in Iraq, and oppose the racist Al Qaeda and Baathists who want to restore oppression of the Shia or militant Islamic Sharia (or both)

My problem is with people coming here illegally, flouting our laws. As long as 'we' determine "who and how many" and in 'our' interests rather than theirs, I wont winge. History is littered with carcas after carcas of states overun by refugees or simply by migrants.
Read the history of Angkor Wat (Thais took over) or just read the news about the history of Ivory coast.

The "Christian" approach is to believe Romans 13 about an Emporer (secular of otherwise) who carries the sword (or the Nukes) to deter the 'evildoer'.

Jesus was neither "left" nor "right" He spoke about the culpability of the unjust, but injustice stems from alienation from God.

He drove out the 'opportunistic merchants' from the Temple, and he healed the broken hearted. You cannot have one without the other. Accepting refugees without dealing with the injustice which produced them is plain stupid.

Thanks Kay (Kalweb), and welcome to the fray!

As a computer literate you will find yourself in a rather masculine medium. Angry too.

Males adapt more readily to technology. (This is not to do with greater ability, just natural inclination.) For this reason, OpinionOnline commentaries tend to be dominated by young men in a virtual state of warfare. I know my own gender pretty well.

Sometimes I wonder if this debating space is at all productive. At best it is a reasonably safe outlet for aggression. Maybe a place where disempowered folk can develop themselves, by learning to hear others, develop their maturity and appreciation for democratic values.

But at worst maybe it is no more than a breeding ground for growing intolerance and ethnic partisanship? When I hear some of those angry diatribes I think: “These folk may as well be in Northern Ireland, the West Bank, Kashmir or Rwanda. ”

I only hope the war of words and ethnic diatribes will work their way through before Australia becomes too poisoned by this inane culture of intolerance. Will the pendulum swing back to reason, or are we on a one-way trajectory?

Good luck.

Gecko
Re your comment that those who are inclining to ethnic partisanship are like those in:

Northern Ireland,
the West Bank,
Kashmir or
Rwanda

Are you suggesting that those places have no grounds for ethnic hostility ? At what point does it become reasonable to defend ones culture and social fabric ?

You are observing in the forums an evolution of self awareness of Australians, brought about by attacks on what has long been assumed to be our unchallenged way of life.

Until the Tutsi rebels began to 'pick off' the Hutu politicians one by one, the Hutus regarded them just as an 'annoying pest' but when they saw fellow leaders dropping like flies from Tutsi assasins they reacted.

The Irish conflict is rooted in history, one aspect of which was nearly ALL land in ALL Ireland being owned by Absentee English Anglicans.

Here in Australia, we saw on national TV a muslim youth counsellor who declared that the Muslim males he works with are characterized by 2 major attitudes.

1/ They regard 'skips' as Inferior.
2/ They hate western values.

Now, you can call a quacking, feathered, webbed footed flat beaked animal a donkey if you like, I call it a duck.

People are standing up to be counted for their 'ethnicity'and culture. -That you are surprised by this is most suprising to me.

The best way for such incidents to be handled is the police. But when the Premier of NSW owes his political life to dependancy on the Islamic vote, and you note how police have been systematically under-resourced, specially in places like Cronulla (from 17 down to 1 shopfront member) and how magistrates have white-anted the credibility and morale of the Police, its little wonder people are upset and cynical about 'fair playing fields'.

I don't feel so powerless anymore. I've noted that the many MANY emails and phone calls I've made may be just little grains of sand but a lot of sand gives you a BEACH, and it appears to have shaken the NSW government into going for a sunbathe

Remove Religion, you remove problems.

They fight amoungst themselves for trivial reasons often regarding religion.

If it is inside them to achieve, they will. Many just want an opportunity. But it would be fixed by a bit of after sales service, parole if you want to call it that. They have a 2 year review and based on their contribution to Australian Society, they get approved to stay or go.

What is wrong with this. Forget race, religion and the like, put the runs on the board and you can stay. Aussies come from everywhere and the general consensus is that we bond through exposure to eachother, toiling together and by the removal of migrants choosing to isloate themselves by living in ghettos.

A Simple solution that will never be implemented due to lefties who dont like the fact that these poor people will be subjected to 2 nmore years of government monitoring. This is how we fix the current problems that have derived, and ensure all migrants are in line with what we value here in Australia....'having a go'.

Oh well, another useless but pracitcal proposition ignored.

Dear BOAZ-DAVID,

Of course there are justice issues in places such as Northern Ireland, the Middle East and Rwanda. These led to mass genocide and civil war.

Surely you are not suggesting that we need a bloody civil war here in Australia as a way of resolving a few perceived migrant issues?

The various migrant groups in my area abide by the laws of Australia, appreciate our culture, watch TV like us, love their children like we do...... Yes, some dress and eat differently to me, but that adds colour to an otherwise rather bland suburbia.

There may be a few dysfunctional people around, but there are plenty of dysfunctional anglo saxons around too. Serious cases.

The law and social services need to deal with such problems, but not via using race or ethnicity as an overtone.

Bronwyn keeps telling us that there will only ever be a few thousand asylum seekers, implying that the rest of us who worry about this question are mean-spirited, paranoid, or simply rabid xenophobes. The problem is that numbers don't stay small without mandatory detention, as we can tell from looking at Europe and North America. There were only a few thousand asylum seekers in Britain too in the early 1970s, and it took years for them to build up. Your average illegal immigrant or asylum seeker isn't a top scientist or opera star, with highly paid work and an adoring public just waiting for him. He knows he is likely to need a support network, so avoids going to places where his ethnic community isn't represented. Once a critical mass is reached, though, numbers really explode. Timothy J. Hatton of the ANU has written on this. You also get problems with increasing numbers of ill-founded claims.

Britain had 490,000 asylum claims between 1997 and 2004, not counting dependants (spouses, children, and in some cases parents and grandparents). Up through 2002, 21% were granted asylum, including after appeal. 16% were given extraordinary leave to remain, some for humanitarian reasons but mostly because there was no realistic prospect of removal. 13% were deported, and all the rest stayed on illegally. These are Home Office figures from the Migration Watch site (www.migrationwatchuk.org). 70% destroyed their travel documents so that it is often impossible to prove where they came from or get the home country to cooperate with deportation. Then there are those who tie up the system in endless appeals or hide with the aid of corrupt businessmen and officials. The picture is similar in the US and Canada. Bronwyn is effectively asking for open borders.

I agree with redneck (who gave me a good laugh on a bad day) about refugee advocates who walk over homeless schizophrenics while looking for a good place to hand out their leaflets.

I read that 18 million people could die in Africa because of drought caused starvation. What can the world do to help a nation always trembling on the brink? Africa is like an expanding black hole, there should be some way of setting it on a path that will sustain the population, but I do not know what it could be.
As a contrast on television last night there was an extremely violent muslim with two wives, complete with separate families, all including him,living off the tax payer and three state supplied homes. He has one just for himself.
Never in Africa.

Mickijo,
"18 million people could die in Africa because of drought caused starvation."
To those numbers of premature deaths could be added the ones which are due to malaria, dysentery and water-borne diseases in general, inadequate nutrition rather than starvation alone, warfare directly and indirectly. And so-on.
"There should be some way of setting it on a path that will sustain the population." But is there any prospect of ever sustaining a population of current size (let alone one atttempting to expand at a doubling-time of less than thirty years)? And one in which those listed death rates can be negated?
The more realistic approach of using humane methods of altering the population size to match its prospects for a more civilised existence was aired in 1994.
Why is it that people who raise the issue of human suffering in Africa refuse to enter into consideration of the opportunities presented that year at Cairo? Is it to do with nothing more than religious dogma? If so, it should be enough to put genuinely caring people off religion altogether.

It's immensely sad what is happening to people around the world--but the solution isn't as simple as opening our borders and letting refugees in. I agree with BD on this that the trickle we have at the moment is negligible and we aren't in a position to take them all.

Some suggestions that the west could do to ease some of the problems for Africa:

African nations have been forced to agree to Free Trade Agreements with the west that don't favour them. Particularly farm and export subsidies in Developed nations have a devastating effect on their food production. They are not allowed to subsidise their farming or exports but get the cheaper goods from the west dumped on them. They are also forced to open their markets to western goods while the west closes their doors on many of theirs-developed countries need to open their doors to more of Africans commodities.

Their economies are not diversified enough and this needs to be addressed. They also need a system to tackle crises in commodity prices--to manage over/undersupply considering how many of their economies are reliant on two few commodities.

They are exploited for their natural resources where not enough of the wealth is returned to the people--they need to be protected from this abuse and western companies need to be regulated on this.

Stop Arms trade-An International Arms Trade Treaty to regulate breaches of international humanitarian law and human rights in Africa.

Global warming: it is the sub sahara area of Africa that is the first inline to suffer from the drying effects of this.

Discourage oppressive dictatorships.

Obviously issues like AIDS, 50% of the people only have access to dirty water (which is responsible for 80% of the world's diseases-WHO), and financing their debt need to be tackled. Debt relief and Aid to address this is needed.

More starvation is caused by dislocation and abuse of people in war in Africa and from government corruption than from drought.

Redneck - "Once again, you imply that no government has the right to prevent people from crossing it's borders."

I did not imply this. Governments have the right to set quotas and to conduct security checks. They do not have the right to discriminate on the basis of race though and they do not have the right to lock up innocent and needy people in detention centres for years on end.

Governments have responsibilities also. In a globalized world where Australia's fortunes are increasingly dependent on those of other nations, we should play our part in assisting in the resettlement of the world's twenty-plus million refugees.

"Tell me Bronnie. How did you develop this hatred for your own people? Why is it that you consider the welfare of every other person in the world to be more important than the peacefull functioning of your own society?"

I do not hate my fellow Australians. Caring about the welfare of the world's displaced people and caring about the peaceful functioning of our own society are not mutually exclusive. We can do both.

Divergence - "The problem is that numbers don't stay small without mandatory detention, as we can tell from looking at Europe and North America."

Australia's remoteness protects us from this situation. We are not easily reached nor are we a favoured destination. Most asylum seekers know little if anything about Australia.

Bronwyn,

You are ignoring the effects of chain migration. Once someone from village X gets into Australia, he is then in a position to encourage his friends and relatives in village X to come and to give them support while they settle in. After a certain point demand really snowballs, and once this demand exists, it pays people smugglers to service the route. Britain and the US could also be considered remote for most asylum seekers, but people apparently have no trouble reaching them.

It is easy to say that you want to help everyone, but global resources per person are such that everyone would be living in poverty if they were shared equally, and, of course, the situation is getting worse as world population grows. See the Redefining Progress environmental footprints if you doubt this. Britain spent 2 billion pounds in 2002 alone on asylum seekers. Obviously this money was then not available to help homeless British people, children needing special education, old people who need cataract surgery, etc. "If I say that all men are my brothers, I have no brother."