Mr Right

"Australia might have obligations to take UN processed refugees, but not illegal entrants, despite the blathering that there is no such thing as illegal 'refugees'."

You can dismiss information you don't want to hear as "blathering" if you like, Mr Right, but I will restate the facts anyway just to correct the record. Under International law anyone escaping persecution is entitled to apply for refugee asylum, and Australia as a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention has an obligation to assess their claim. They are not "illegal entrants", "illegal immigrants", "illegal refugees", "illegal asylum seekers", "illegals", "aliens" or any other of these inflammatory terms coined very deliberately to exacerbate fear and resentment within the wider community.

Plerdsus

"In addition, the convention denies them the right to shop around, and requires them to seek asylum in the first country they arrive in, not the one that they think will suit them best."

There is no requirement in International law for refugees to seek asylum in the first country they come to. Refugees can't stay in Indonesia because it's not a signatory to the UN Convention.

Australia can afford to take in more refugees than its current intake. I understand the need to limit population growth. We're currently bringing in about 160 000 migrants a year, many of whom are skilled migrants poached from countries who can ill afford to lose them. This intake can be reduced and the uptake of refugees increased without incurring an increase in overall migration numbers.

Romany

"As for Australians having nothing in common with refugees from other countries? I believe that common humanity provides that link."

I agree. And hopefully initiatives like Oxfam's Refugee Realities continue to strengthen that link. Thanks Andrew for bringing it to our attention.

Those chanting the loudest "There is no such thing as illegal" when they howl and rant and disrupt and attack anyone seeking strong border control..... are....

in the next breath....

at the next rally....

Chanting "We will take over the USA by the ballot box or violent revolution"

Don't believe me.. believe those who are saying it.... (see youtube vids above)

Then ask.. "Is it a good thing that the Democrats rely so heavily on the Hispanic vote"?

Bronwyn,

To quote from the 1951 convention:

"Article 31. Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

In other words, the refugee must travel directly from the country of persecution to the country of refuge, without passing through any other countries."

The other thing that interests me in your post is your reference to international law. Who passed this law? By what right? When did the Australian people delegate any right to the United Nations or any other body to legislate on behalf of Australians? I think you will find that international law has no force or effect in Australia except as provided by commonwealth legislation.

You disparage the term "alien", even though it is mentioned in the convention. I gather that the current term used in the Migration Act is "unlawful non-citizen", but since unlawful means illegal and non-citizen means alien I don't think it makes much difference.

The convention entitles signatories to refuse asylum on the grounds of national security. It would seem to me that most of the muslim inhabitants of the middle east could justifiably be categorised as enemy aliens (as demonstrated by the participants in several terrorist events) and that our acceptance of refugees should be primarily be determined on this basis.

So I guess Boazy didn't visit the 'Refugee Realities' event in Melbourne. Given his very un-Christian disposition towards those who didn't have his accident of birth, it's hardly surprising I guess.

Mr Right - I live west of the Great Divide too, and even our little town has done its share of accepting refugees over the years, most recently in hosting a couple of dozen Sudanese who were employed at the local abattoir. Prior to that it was Bosnians, Vietnamese, Chileans - you name it. Over time all these people have either integrated and become members of the community, or moved on.

As for the rest of it, what Bronwyn said.

Country shopping is not included in the rules, Bronwyn. Like all bleeding hearts you rely on emotions, not logic or commonsense.

You can blather as much as you wish. We live in a democracy where the majority rules. Fortunately people like you are not in the majority; nor are most OLO posters who display sanctimonious shock and horror when logic and commonsense is aired by conservative posters.

Most blogs are loaded with wet lefties who like to cluster together so that they can hear what they want to hear, and they just love the opportunity to rubbish the few conservative people who put opposing views.

So, keep blathering in your artificial world. Reality comes from people who air their feelings and beliefs at elections times; hence we have the governments and policies wanted by the so-called silent majority.

Most sensible people can live with either major party in government because they hold similar views on major matters.

Tough luck for the likes of you, Bronwyn.

Bronwyn (continued),

You state that we should accept refugees (presumably ones that would be unable to obtain employment) instead of skilled migrants. My personal view is our population is already far too high, and all immigration should cease, as happened during the depression. Your attitude sees to be that the third world is entitled to double its population over the next few decades, and that we must accept as many of these people who wish to come here. This is a policy of despair.

No-one is happy about the catastrophic situation that much of the world will sink into over the coming decades, as food shortages interact with expanding population, and the four horsemen of the apocalypse carry out their corrections. Unfortunately Australia is not equipped to offer any meaningful solution to these problems.

A last point: Japan does not admit any refugees, but is never criticised. Why?