Communicat,
Agreed, most of the boat people were opportunists that were buyung their way here. There are many in far greater need than the boat people.

I remain bitterly disappointed that at least some of those rescued by the Tampa were not charged with hyjacking. Instead of being gratefull for being saved, they forced the Tampa to sail to Christmas Island. Those supporting the boat people will not admit it, but if the Tampa had been allowed to let those saved off in Indonesia,as intended, and their rescue story got around, the Siev X disaster may never have happened. Am further dissappointed that most of those the Tampa rescued ended up here. None should have been allowed.

Having said that, the current Government did stop the boats coming and that means they should be numbered ahead of Labor on the ballot sheet.

From what I understand, there is a 'white flight' from the UK of people sick to heart of seeing their own country turned into an 'asylum' trash heap. Other parts of Europe are similar.
Can our politicians get the message?
I doubt it, the large numbers of black Africans and muslims accepted into this country as migrants,prove that the powers that be are deaf, dumb and blind to reality and realitiy is what we ordinary folk must live with.

It is unfortunate that the media has allowed several high profile members of the legal profession and some vocal, persistent and ill-informed writers of "letters to the editor" to offer an entirely false view of what the actual situation is. There is, for example, never any mention made of the coaching some asylum seekers get in an effort to ensure they provide the 'right' answers in an effort to get the political upperhand. No mention is made of the excellent engines in some 'leaky vessels' or the deliberate scuttling of boats, or of the use of women and children to provide safe passage for men who have committed crimes which would result in the death sentence in their own country.
Yes, the Tampa should have gone to Indonesia. It may have stopped the Siev X. Unfortunately someone else would have tried. Indonesia needs to be made more accountable but too much money changes hands among corrupt officials.

Bronwyn,

The UNHCR statement is very relevant. You stated its difficult to tell because you would have to see it in context, but I gave you the reference for this purpose. The paper was written just last year, so they are basically saying that, economic migrants are increasing in number and sometime in the early 1990s they became the majority of asylum seekers. Remember this is from the UNHCR. If you read the rest of the paper you will find that it worries the UNHCR because it makes host countries suspicious of ALL asylum seekers, and makes it difficult for the FEW genuine ones.

In reply to your second question. I had the correct reply yesterday but when I tried to post it, it was too long, and then I discovered I was only allowed 2 posts for the day. So here is the rest.

I'm sure you will be able to find a few countries that take a small number of refugees, yet because of their small population their per capita figure is grossly inflated and beats Australia. I don't really feel that's a valid argument. For instance Naru could take 2 refugees and be the top per capita country in the world. This is silly.
Again, another argument you have used is that there are 70 other countries that are not included. Yet this again is misleading as you are counting countries that give absolutely NO assistance to refugees, countries such as Pakistan. Many of these countries just allow them to stand on their soil, and nothing more. Many do not allow them assistance, work, citizenship etc. Again this kind of thing does not compare with what Australia, USA, Sweden etc do. I feel again your argument is misleading.

The original statement that per capita, Australia takes a larger proportion of refugees than nearly every other country is CORRECT. We are right up there near the top of the developed countries. Why don't you try blaming some of the other 300, yes 300 or so countries below us.

Your arguments against this statement are highly misleading

With some notable exceptions; what an ugly racist (yes RACIST!) thread.

My thanks to knopfler, Divergence and others for supporting the first post I made on this subject.

Bronwyn,

I think it would help myself and many other posters for you to enlarge on your world-outlook for the rest of this century. Do you think we are shortly going to enter into a new golden age, where the lion will lie down with the lamb, etc., or do you agree with me that the country showing the way of the future for much of the world, particularly the third world, is Iraq? Do you expect refugees of all sorts to increase or decrease? Is there any level of refugee intake where you would say "enough", or must we accept all comers? What about the near future when the world runs out of oil, and several wars have to be fought to see who gets the residual oil and who gets nothing? Do you think that technology will solve all these problems, and allow the world population to increase to 20 billion?

Your views on these subjects would be much appreciated.