Mr Right: "I have never tried to hide the fact that I do not want refugees coming to Australia. I would not want them under any circumstances. I hope that is clear enough."

Shut the gates! Pull up the drawbridge! Turn off the lights. Time for beddy-byes. Uncle Leigh is going to tell us all a story about how his very own family came to Australia. And how from that day on, nobody else was ever going to spoil his perfect world. His dreamtime.

Shhhh! Don't wake him up. In his dream it's only 1945.

Some interesting facts regards TPVs in today's letters page of The Australian.

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/letters/index.php

CJMorgan, as a matter of interest, what is your attitude towards unhcr refugees who cannot afford to pay large amounts of money to people smugglers to travel around the world and enter affluent western countries to seek refuge. And what is you attitude towards Australia’s humanitarian refugee resettlement program. Do you believe that Australia’s refugee resettlement program should be aimed towards those most in need ? Or do you believe it is perfectly acceptable that those with substantial financial resources be granted resettlement in Australia ahead of others in perhaps more dire need who do not have the financial resources required to pay people smugglers ?

CJMorgan, before answering you might like to peruse the following link:

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:vGJ0uy-e9CAJ:www.erc.org.au/index.php%3Fmodule%3Ddocuments%26JAS_DocumentManager_op%3DdownloadFile%26JAS_File_id%3D5+kakuma+edmund+rice&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=au

CJMorgan: “Face it, you guys simply don't want any refugees coming to Australia and you'll use any specious argument you can to back up your xenophobia.

CJMorgan, please take a look through all of my previous posts and then please explain in a logical manner how you deduce that I “simply don't want any refugees coming to Australia”. I would think that the logical deduction from my postings would be that my strong preference is for refugee resettlement places to go to those most in need (such as unhcr refugees in squalid refugee camps) , and that I don’t consider by any means that secondary movement asylum seekers with many thousands of dollars to pay people smugglers as being those most in need and should take preference.

CJMorgan, please also take a look through all of my previous posts and then please explain in a reasoned manner how you deduce that I will “use any specious argument you can to back up your xenophobia”. In my postings I have provided links to various newspaper articles and academic papers, are these to be considered as “specious arguments” ? In particular are the logical and reasoned papers by Monash University academic Adrienne Millibank on this subject to be considered as “specious arguments.

CJMorgan: “While it may technically remove "discrimination" if absolutely no refugees made it to Australia, that would be an even less humane situation than the current approach.”

I respectfully disagree. If no secondary movement asylum seekers were being delivered by people smugglers, places in Australia’s refugee resettlement could be allocated to a greater extent based on need rather than on financial ability to pay people smugglers. I think that would be a very much more humane situation than allowing people smugglers to decide to whom Australia’s refugee resettlement places should be allocated to. Note that those who would have paid many thousands of dollars to people smugglers could still apply for resettlement, albeit from a country of first asylum and processed in accordance with unhcr procedures in the same manner as the majority of the world’s refugees

Franklin, the fact that someone can raise enough money to pay a people-smuggler doesn't imply in any way that their fears of harm or persecution are not well-founded. The guy who was returned to Afghanistan to be thrown down a well and blown up is a case in point.

Most probably unlike you, I've actually met and known refugees who've arrived here by boat and also those who've been accepted from camps in Kenya and Uganda. What they all have in common is the fact that they had to leave their countries of origin because their lives were in danger, either from warfare, religious persecution or famine.

Your posts have cleverly focused on "secondary movement" asylum seekers as a way of avoiding the issue that such refugees are overwhelmingly every bit as bona fide as are those who come from UN-run camps in Africa. I think that your focus is designed to obscure your generalised antipathy to any refugees being accepted into Australia.

Just out of interest, framklin, perhaps you could tell us how many bona fide refugees Australia should accept, from whence they should come and on what basis they should be prioritised?

Franklin “I think that would be a very much more humane situation than allowing people smugglers to decide to whom Australia’s refugee resettlement places should be allocated to.”

Absolutely agree

Abdicating the process of “refugee selection” to overseas criminal gangs is to endorse anarchy.

Yet, we continue to see how some “bleeding hearts” are prepared to abdicate the right of Australians to select who will be allowed to settle in Australia by the temper tantrums of moronic anarchistic ranters.

The other point is, those people who pay criminal gangs to help them to evade the Australia migration processes are the sort of people who would fail to qualify, on “good character” grounds for a residency or any other form of visa