[Deleted for flaming and poster suspended]

The problem is that the definition of a refugee is too broadly defined.In the past they were mostly small numbers of elite educated escaping political oppression,now we have the masses who want to escape poverty and oppression in an over populated world.

We'll have to re-define what refugee status is,or become like the poverty traps from which they are escaping.

To the author:

Thank you for your article.

To Realist and Arjay (with whom I rarely agree), thank you for your great posts.

And to Proud to be Indonesian - see other thread. I will not waste my breath.

Cheers
Kay

Is Mr Kevin planning another book with which to bash Australia over the head? Surely it's out fault again. I know he'll twist the story around and find that we are to blame.

SHOULD WE ACCEPT THEM ?

Many of you will observe that I have been very passionate about not accepting so called assylum seekers from the middle east etc, who come to Australia via 'other countries' as in.. MANY other countries, before they arrive here.

I've stated that as soon as they are IN a country which can offer them 'assylum' and safety, to leave that country disqualifies them from the status 'assylum seeker'.

Some probably suspect that my motivation in this stand has been based on the fact that many of the middle east assylum seekers are 'Muslims'.

To a degree this is true. But my opposition to Muslim immigration of ANY kind remains firm, not just those who try to go in the back door.

This might lead to the suspicion that I would be more favorable to 'Christian' assylum seekers. This is also true, in the sense that I believe they will be more socially and culturally compatable.
This is confirmed by the fact that Christian lebanese are not only WAY ahead in employment and income than Muslim Lebanese, they ALSO outstrip our national average. Muslim lebanese are way BELOW our national average in household income and employment (figures released by Monash demographic study last week)

But while my personal views may be this, I remain firm that ANY assylum seeker of ANY religion who comes to Australia for anything other than genuine 'assylum' should be dealt with under our harsh but just immigration detention laws. Genuine assylum means we have to be the closest country to theirs.

I cannot see why the West Papuans did not simply row their boats around the border to PNG ! It might not be the most economically attractive place, but if they can obtain assylum there, it is where they should go ! Why ? CLOSEST !

I sense that Australia might have been chosen more because of its political usefulness and clout, than its 'safe haven' features.

PTBI

You are indeed a feisty fellow (I am being very polite using the word 'fiesty') - your comments would hold more relevance if you could hold off on the insults, after all any intelligent reader to this forum can discern that your claims about European Australians (whether they hold an element of truth or not) is simply your attempt to deflect debate from the true issue.

However, where you really bring your argument undone is by referring constantly to Papuans as 'barbaric' or 'primitive'.

As in your latest: "(eg. the barbaric Papuan separatist terrorists)"

If your view is one endemic throughout Indonesia, then you are adding validity to the claim by West Papuans that Indonesians are treating them cruelly and subjecting them to torture. If you held respect for these people you wouldn't be referring to west Papuans as primitive or barbaric. History shows throughout the world (and in Australia also) that when people are dehumanised as 'primitive' or 'barbaric' then these people are subjected to inhuman acts, such as the ones claimed by the West Papuan refugees.

In which case, Western Papuans have every right to seek asylum.