GOOD_GRIEF..... they are still coming back.. like the heads that popup at the carnival when you whack one..

WIZOFAUS SAID:

>>If it makes me a bleeding heart lefty to believe that those children in the first three photos fully deserve to be enjoying the conditions that those in the last three are, then I'm proud to be one.<<

If that is your position.. it makes you also.. (dare I say it with CJ Morgan monotoring me for 'personal' attacks) a twit.

You could have avoided the 'twit' allegation very simply. Here's how.

You could have qualified your post VERY responsibly by pointing out:

1/ We can never hope to bring all the 'poor and underprivileged' children to Australia as there are more 'out there' than our WHOLE population.

2/ We do not 'exist' so that poor children can suddenly enjoy our lifestyle...which would evaporate overnight and degenerate into very SIMILAR conditions from which your bleeding heart extricated them.

Thats all.. very simple.. very reasonable.. very truthful. But no,.... you suggested very unambiguously that you believe 'we' (the privileged) should open our door to ALL those enjoying a lesser living standard... and suddenly.. socialist utopia has arrived.. and you.. the Messiah, will be at the head of the grand parade.(or is it the highway to hell)
Wiz... puh-lease think with your independant brain...not with the idiotic propoganda your brain has been generously served from who knows where.

2.....+ 2......= 4 u know... it does.. really.

20 million starving underpriveleged children.. + 'come to Australia'= DISASTER.

Melbourne has now clawed its way back to the grand 39% water and that's where we started last year..... we are NOW on the brink of
calamity. Ok.. so lets take at LEAST another mill or 2 of kids.. and see how long it lasts ?

Mate...you need a good shaking.. *shake_shake_shake*.. did it make any difference?
I just shake my old noggin in disbelief at the crazy thinking of some of you.

At least now, knowing Morgan agrees with you (or is 'closer') it explains his weird thinking on other matters

Actually Boaz, I might suggest it would seem to require one to be something of twit to extrapolate from "these children deserve the same conditions" to "let's bring them all to Australia at once".
I already explicitly stated that a doubling of our refugee intake program would need to be coupled with a halving of the regular migrant intake (which is at least 5 times bigger). So, like CJ, I'm arguing for a lower net migration rate than what we have currently.

As far as water usage goes, we personally have managed to reduce our water usage by half over the last couple of years. Indeed, there are 3 of us living on a medium size block *with* a swimming pool, and yet we use less than the average for 2 people living on a small block.
If we can do it, than everyone can - we could easily get by on far less water than we use now, with no genuine loss in standard of living.

Boazo: "you suggested very unambiguously that you believe 'we' (the privileged) should open our door to ALL those enjoying a lesser living standard"

GOOD_GRIEF - Boazy's totally misinterpreted yet another couple of posts in order to demonstrate the paucity of his Christian compassion towards refugees. Who's suggested that we admit every refugee who wants to come here, without restriction?

If you weren't such a xenophobic "twit" you'd realise that wizofaus and I are both arguing for an overall reduction in net immigration, but also that the refugee proportion of our intake of immigrants is increased. That is, our criteria for accepting immigrants should favour humanitarian factors, rather than perceived economic ones.

Or is that beyond the capacity of your twittering mind to comprehend?

d_Nich... are you writing under TWO names ? Wizofaus was the one arguing as you said "halve the regular intake and double the refugee"

and I do apologise..I only picked up from your last post.. didn't read all of them in this case.

Your first (unread) point does make more sense, which makes me wonder why you came up with the 2nd?

Our refugee intake should not be based on 'poor living conditions' it should always be based on the terms of our signatory status, i.e. the convention itself.. which has nothing to do with either economic opportunity or living conditions.. other than a threat from other people toward their personal safety for limited and specific reasons outlined in the convention.

So..I share you concern for refugees.. and I also absolutely support the Howardian mantra "We...will determine who comes here and the circumstances under which they come" I guess he could have added to that "on criteria of social, cultural, political cohesian and harmony"

To do otherwise would be totally insane.

So..within the constraints of sound and responsible policy, let compassion flow like a beautiful river.

I must agree again with BOAZ_David, who in my opinion has presented the best case for the status quo.

I find that for some reason bleeding hearts are very concerned with empty gestures, which serve no other purpose that to give them a warm inner glow. I know that the reality out there is frightening and depressing, but ignoring it is no answer.

The brutal reality is that the third world (most of which is in the never-to-be-developed-world) is set to double its population over the next 25 years, while that of the first world will stabilise.

This will happen because the only thing that George Bush, the Vatican, the UN, and the muslim world agree on is that NOTHING must be done to limit world population. Countries like China, which have acted to limit growth, are regularly denigrated, even though much of their current improvement in living standards is due to that limitation.

This means that in 2032 we will have a world population of around 10 billion.

There will not be enough food to feed this number.

There will not be enough oil to carry food to the massive cities in the third world.

Most of this increase will go to swell third world cities, which will become enormous stinking slums, run by criminal gangs.

There will be NOTHING we can do then to alter this situation. We could make a symbolic gesture, and admit 85 million refugees, which would reduce our living standard to that of Bangladesh, and as it would equal the annual population increase, would delay the inevitable by 12 months.

There is, however, something we can do now.

If we spend our foreign aid money on education girls in third world countries, this will cut the birth rate, as there is a strong correlation. Countries refusing to accept this would be denied all aid and trade.

As a result of all this I totally endorse Howard's position on refugees, but would still like the normal migrant intake to be reduced, as using current technology, we don't have enough water for many more people.

Yes, BOAZ, dnicholson=wizofaus, thought you had been reaading the "privileged whites" thread.

As far as taking in refugees based purely on 'poor living conditions', well no, but the fact is that they are living in ghastly refugee camp conditions because those are *better* than their original living conditions, where warfare, genocide and famine are the norm.