Of course Australia can afford to be generous to a few thousand refugees a year, although we need to be wary in view of the mass influx in Europe and North America as chain migration effects set in. The harsh treatment of this particular family, who were almost certainly genuine and recognised as such by New Zealand, can be reasonably attributed to the Howard government's attempt to deflect attention from its mass migration policy, a policy supported by Andrew Bartlett, because "we can't keep Australia to ourselves", as he said on another thread.

I haven't seen specifically Australian studies, but a number of US ones show mass migration does indeed shaft blue collar workers. There are references on the Center for Immigration Studies site (www.cis.org) to a number of such studies, including the 1997 National Academy of Sciences report "The New Americans". Prof. George Borjas of the Harvard Economics Dept. (hardly a place where people are hired to promulgate myths), himself a Cuban refugee, found "the analysis indicates that immigration lowers the wage of competing workers: a 10 percent increase in supply reduces wages by 3 to 4 percent" (Borjas, Quarterly J. of Economics, 2003, pp. 1335-1374, also at www.borjas.com). There was about an 11% increase in US labour supply due to immigration between 1980 and 2000, and Borjas estimates that it had varying effects on different types of workers, but that it reduced the wages of the least skilled workers by 8.9% and of college graduates by 4.9%. In a panel discussion at CIS in 2001, Jared Bernstein of the Economic Policy Institute said, "The vast majority of the research shows that immigration, especially at the lower end, does lower wages." It is amazing that people who readily accept that Cyclone Larry raised the price of bananas refuse to believe that supply and demand also apply to labour and housing.

Andrew,
The real measure of compassion/charity/high ideals is NOT how much of the tax payers money one can hand out – but rather how much of ones own money/goods one has given.

It would be enlightening to know how much of their parliamentary salary & perks the pro-refugee politicians have given over to the support the refugees.

If their largesse matches their posturing/sermonising , they should all be paupers by now.

I am curious.

Is there ever a reason for denying people permission to enter Australia because of their beliefs?

Holocaust denier David Irving was denied permission to visit Australia. Was this the right thing to do?

I am not equating Islam with Holocaust denial although, as a matter of plain fact, many Muslims are Holocaust deniers. I am trying to establish a principle here.

Does it make a difference if a belief is based on religion? Should Australia deny entry to members of the White supremacist "Christian Identity" sect?

What proportion of adherents to a particular faith have to believe something before we say that's part of the doctrine? Suppose it turned out, as I believe to be the case, that the majority of Muslims deny the Holocaust. Do we allow in Muslim immigrants but ban David Irving?

The reaction of people like Andrew Bartlett is to deny the issue exists. They will repeat the mantra that "true" Islam is a "religion of peace" and that it is only a "tiny" minority of "Islamist fanatics" who cause problems. But, objectively speaking, is this correct?

What is actually being taught in Madrassahs in Pakistan?

Another reaction is to label people like me "racist" for raising the issue. I've long understood that a "racist" is someone who wins an argument with a Leftie.

I guess I can summarise this post with two questions:

Is there ever a case for barring people from Australia because of their beliefs?

If the answer to the above is "no" should we allow David Irving to visit Australia?

Stephany, So tell me (succinctly) why you are not a racit or harbour racist beliefs? Its a fair question isn't it?

Stephany,
Apparently only if you deny the holocaust can one be denied entry.
If you want to enslave the population into your particular brand of fantasy then come on in brother, bring your silly hat with you and insult us all, seems the way.
Its only racist if your ANGLO seems the order of the day, I dont believe in Irvings rants but I do think he has as much right to visit here as much as Muslims with a similar bent even perhaps more so considering he is a subject of the Commonwealth.
Its a reverse racism that is being implemented on Anglo peoples Western countries wide, you see Stephany it gives the leftist moonbats a warm fuzzy feeling to marginalise and discriminate against those of thier own race and culture in the name of human rights and civil liberties. 9 times out of 10 they dont have to live next door to what they are importing and then when we get upset by our strange new neighbours they have the hide to call us racists while they live in thier nice safe suburbs.
Paul Keating in his chase for minority votes allowed Hilali to have Australian Citizenship even after being considered an undesirable. Keating shall always have that to brag about and being the worlds greatest treasurer. His silence is deafening

Here we go again with the “reverse racism” argument which asserts when the victims of racism organize or act against racism and oppression, they are automatically / also practicing racism.

It’s not unlike the equivalent of men crying out they’re being oppressed by “feminazis' but still hold all the power.

If I could reverse racism I would not do it, sot you should be aware that naming it, identifying it, discussing it is not a reverse of its impact on those it most affects. It does not flip reality just because you think it has.

But this is what you purport happens.

Racism is structurally and institutionally embedded in society.

It’s more than just name calling.

How does mentioning racism or addressing racism constitute reverse racism?

And people who do promote attacks and racist ideas like David Irwin should not be allowed in Australia. We have enough home grown varieties to deal with.