Someone said there are 2.5 million refugees in camps in Pakistan, millions of homeless people in hundreds of camps looking for help. All those unfortunates would be Muslims driven out of their homes by ..Muslims.
Surely anyone can see the deep faultlines here, a religion,not race, that seek to kill its own people and drive the rest out of their homes.But if the wind shifts ,the same refugees would turn and do exactly the same to their predators for the same religious reason.
We have made a big mistake in allowing the followers of that religion into this country. Now we have to put a watch on them to make sure they do not harm us for the same religious reasons. We offer them charity , what do they offer us?

Bronwyn is quite wrong when she says that we would have negative population growth without immigration. If she checks the ABS figures she will see that approximately two babies are born and one net immigrant arrives for every person who dies. It is true that the fertility rate is slightly below replacement level, but there is still enormous momentum due to past high fertility rates. This is because most of the deaths are occurring in the small elderly generation while most of the births are occurring in the big young adult generation. Even if immigration stopped tomorrow, the population wouldn't start to decline for nearly another 40 years, and it would be much longer before it would be smaller than it is today. Australia isn't going to run out of people any time soon.

She should also check the 1951 Refugee Convention, which is on the Web. Refugees are instructed to seek asylum in the first safe country they come to, which is the case for the Papuans, but certainly not the Bakhtiyaris. They are entitled to refuge and decent treatment, but not permanent residency, citizenship, or First World standards of living in the country of their choice.

Bronwyn, you say you don't want a free-for-all, so how would you avoid a repeat of the European experience? If people can avoid deportation and live freely in the community merely by hiring a people smuggler and destroying their travel documents than it is only fair to call yours an open borders position, if not de jure, then de facto.

Divergence,
It is my understanding that it is not the case that a refugee must seek asylum in the first country he or she arrives in.

Furthermore, the country concerned must also be a signatory to the 1951 Convention and many countries are not, so it is conceivable that, depending on the route taken, several countries may need to be be crossed before asylum claims are possible.

If I'm wrong could you please indicate the relevant Article Numbers in the Convention.

If you're right, then why don't the West Papuans just travel to Papua New Guinea? It's much closer and can be accessed by land.

Hello David I see you are still singing the same old song. Now perhaps in light of the treatment of West Papuans who have just been given refugee status running away from Indonesia you could tell us all how anyone could be safe in that brutal place?

The refugee convention does not and nor has it ever hinged on the person stopping at the first place they reach but on getting to the first country where they can legally apply for protection. Even DIMA know that - it was in a discussion paper they wrote in 1999.

This is the story of a baby, I am so sorry you are so cruel that you cannot understand that simple point. Just a little shi'ite Hazara baby boy with no safe place to be in either Paksitan or Afghanistan because he was born here.

In light of other shocking stories out of DIMA perhaps you need to look at their behaviour instead of blaming young kids.

Marilyn Shepherd,
Your emotive ignorance colours your view. I have not seen David blame any young child for the Bakhtiyaris families situation. "In light of other shocking stories out of DIMA perhaps you need to look at their behaviour instead of blaming young kids."

Thousands of young children die each day in Africa from poverty caused by war, so one stateless child in good health you expect us to cry for, and give refuge because their parents were deceptive and illegal entrants. Cry instead for sick African children starving under the opression of warlords. Stop the continual pity for one safe child instead work for safety of the thousands who die each day in terror

Facinating !

"your Cruel"

"You blame the Baby"

This sounds to me like the old 'guilt trip' parents often use against children. OR.. the sound of threatened vested interest ?

Then there is : [the first country where they can legally apply for protection. Even DIMA know that - it was in a discussion paper they wrote in 1999.] <-- source ?

1/ West Papuans..
(remember now, I am totally in sympathy with their situation, believe it or not. But I'm trying to keep my personal feelings out of it for the sake of consistent policy)

Would it be "illegal" for them to make it to PNG which is closer, and more culturally compatable for them ?

As an Aussie, I am very concerned that they took our offer of assylum as a licence to promote political causes. (even ones which I support)

2/ Middle Easteners.

Do you seriously mean to tell me that Australia is the FIRST and CLOSEST 'legal' opportunity for them to claim refuge ? How about Pakistan ? oooooh.. no no no no.. we must not have that must we..... because the REALITY is that Pakistan
-'Takes a long time' (thats impatience)
-'Is dangerous' (Thats deception)
-'is economically unattractive' (Thats greed)
-'is.. this
-'is...that

i.e. bottom line; Pakistan (or similar country in the area) is not the 'preferred socio economic' choice. But it sure is the FIRST/CLOSEST/LEGAL (I'm open to correction there) place for Afghanis.

So, can we remove 'emotive blackmail' from the discussion and stick to the policy issues :)

On the West Papuans.. the best thing they could have done when given assylum is shut the heck up..and speak QUIETLY to our government about what is going on there. That is a way of not causing the sensitive Indonesians who are culturally 'Asian' not to loose face (a fate only one step short of death for most of them.)

What we are up against there, is greed and power, and unless we are prepared to go to war with them, the WP situation will probably shape up as they want it to, sadly.