And Col, no matter how many times you babble about processes and so on, you are wrong. It is the process to be in Australia to apply for protection under the refugee convention.

Indeed the law says you have to be in Australia anyway you can and article 31 of the convention says that travelling without documents is not illegal and arriving without notice is also not illegal.

Have a look at Iraq and Afghanistan you clown or go back to where ever you came from because we have enough inbred rednecks without importing the likes of you.

Marilyn Shepherd ” Col I don't care if you waited in some stupid line for approval, the point is you were migrating,”

Obviously, you have no respect for other people who 'do the right thing' and showing respect for their fellows, it is just “all about Marilyn”

“Amal and the thousands of others were fleeing for their lives.”

and were no longer in 'imminent danger', having made it to Indonesia, from where they sailed.

“As for this ongoing hatred some of you display”

I demand you show where I have used words of hatred toward refugees in any of my posts or be proved a LIAR.

I have only expressed a desire to ensure those who display complete disregard to the sovereignty of Australia do not benefit from their disrespect in acquiring priority over those who have waited, in line, out of respect for our sovereign entry processes.

Your continual attempts to justify the outrages and contempt which those who try to land without approved or appropriate authorization show that you are simply a malignant influence (like your friends cancer), working against civil order and reason.

Re “you brainless thug.” . . .

“you clown or go back to where ever you came from because we have enough inbred rednecks without importing the likes of you.”

It seems to me it is an individual persons right to choose to be clowns, inbred rednecks or brainless thugs ( ie ‘the likes of me’).

I could take you up on returning from whence I came, take my business off shore, making sure the riffraff and swill humpers do not benefit from my tax contributions to the state.

On the other hand, I think I will stay, content in the knowledge, my legal right to be here is significantly more annoying to a arrogant, intolerant, skank, like you.

I guess the reason you like to mix with the near destitute, it gives you opportunity to at least feel superior, a satisfaction obviously denied you when dealing with anyone who is not at the bottom of the heap (hidden motives drive many wannabes).

"I have no problem with refugees who follow due process and act responsibly."

Col, this is eye-of-the-beholder stuff.

From the point of view of a person in another country who is suffering some political victimisation say, his idea of acting responsibly might be to get himself and his family out of harm's way. A very libertarian thing to do, I'm sure you will agree. Provided he is genuinely in need, I think this is fair enough. And the mere fact that getting out of harm's way means moving fast, there is often little or no chance of seamlessly meshing in with a foreign country's Migration Act. The refugees can't just go to their local Australian Embassy down the road, or check out travel advisories on the web and leisurely plan their strategy like one can from English-speaking countries. To them, getting a "people smuggler" to take them on a boat is the same as you or me catching a taxi - it is only a means for getting from point A to B.

RobP “Col, this is eye-of-the-beholder stuff.”

I can see fine,

If I wanted to move somewhere, I would do everything in my power to assure my successful acceptance in that destination.

That would START with making sure I complied with the entry requirements of that destination, not by trying to circumvent them.

Access to a high commission would be my problem to deal with and overcome, not a suitable or valid excuse for me to flout the migration regulations of Australia.

Not one of the so called “refugees” is coming directly from a “country of imminent danger”. All had moved through several other nation states where the were, as you say, “out of harms way” and thus in a better position than those refugees still in their country of “harm”.

Finally, the majority of people who qualify as refugees do respect our laws and apply for migration using whatever resources they can muster and do not try to jump the necessary queue which allows them consideration for legitimate entry to Australia.

I see the SIEV-X queue jumpers as usurping the entitlement of the refugees who wait, in queues, to fair consideration.

I have met several Zimbabweans who have waited and respected our laws to qualify to migrate (mostly black Zimbabweans, the majority of whites were forced out by the bastard Mugabe by 1985, a lot going back to UK, many to SA and even a few coming to Australia)

Whilst I had family here in Australia, I was a “self-sponsoring migrant” but even then, had to wait 7 years before my work skill were in demand. I did not try to jump the queue. I respected Australian expectations and applied only when I believed I would be accepted.

All the sentimental blackmail in the world will never change “usurper of other peoples rights and ignorer of Australian Sovereignty” into “acceptable migrant”.

Your argument fails because it is based on sentimentality, lacks natural justice (the natural justice due to those refugees who patiently wait in queues around the world) only to pander and reward the abuses inflicted by queue jumpers.

Col Rouge,
Believe me, you are wasting your time trying to apply valid and reasonable argument to this debate. I have encounted MS and her cronies before and they are impervious to reason.

Frankly, I think that those adults that took their children on the Siev-X, and other overloaded and unsafe boats, should be charged with putting the children in danger. Some people on the Siev-x realised the danger and demanded to be put off, and were, the rest sailed to their fate. If those that were rescued by the Tampa were taken back to Indonesia, as intended before they were hyjacked, the tragety of the Siev-x may never have occured. But your opponants are oblivious to that or any reasonable view.

Oh well, good luck.

Back for a brief moment.. not about the article, but to mention that I have very little faith in 'government'... of any flavor, and that things go on.. dirty grubby soiled and disgusting things... on all sides... THAT's why I see no value in doing anything other than ignorning this particular issue relative to the many many other far more pressing ones.

Issues like this, will only be solved when people operate from honest and principled motives.

Unfortunately, when it comes to border control, international relations, national security, many things become blurred and muddy, and competing interests are at play.

So.. as it was stated (fictionally) in the move "Shooter" the bad Senator said "Yes, I sacrificed a whole village..but it gave stability to the whole region"....

Those kind of trade offs come into play and no amount of legal or moralizing or sentimental quackery will change the level of difficulty in dealing with them.

Of one thing we may be sure.. SOMEone will have their nose out of joint no matter WHAT is done.

Me.. not knowing enough about this to make judgements..and very cynical about others 'sources'.. leaves me ignoring it.