Someone said that we can’t possibly know what refugees feel or what decisions they have to make. Well, yeah, actually, we can. We can listen to their stories. And in order to do this we have to find a lot more stories, rather than relying on popular print media or commercial channels.

It is from a combination of print media and newspapers that the majority of people receive their first impressions of current events. Few are prepared to concede however, that the original way in which the story was presented influences their bias on the subject. After all, we all like to think of ourselves as strong-minded and Independent. In fact a lot popular media sites pander unashamedly to this common misapprehension.

Some stridently negative voices come from those who knew nothing more about the subject other than what they’ve read in the papers or seen on t.v.

When my children & I were trying to get out of South Africa we were offered free passage to Australia through a tender-hearted philanthropist but who also ran a regular business. You know, the kind newspapers disregard in favour of the “unscrupulous” people-smuggler. During this brief period of contact with the movement of people through countries I was tempted by his offer .I also heard a harrowing amount of first-hand personal accounts. However I eventually declined the offer and instead plunged my kids and myself into a 5 year nightmare - the legal channels.

If you seriously can’t recognize the courage needed nor the personal despair and terror attendant of severing every single link one has in the world then you are being obtuse, I fear.

While those who genuinely can’t - for whatever reason – imagine all the complexities in this problem should, I think, make it their business to at least listen to the voices from the other side. If the word “refugee” brings to anyone’s mind the Tampa (an image seen on television), rather than the face of an actual living, breathing person, then I suggest they are not fitted to be dogmatic upon this issue

Dear Bronwyn

As Yabby said: "you miss the point".

"This debate, before all else, is about humans caring for fellow humans,"

If only it was that simple!

All you see, are the faces and stories. You don't see the bigger picture.
Me.. I just ask one question: "Why the heck have they ended up in AUSTRALIA rather than closer places?" The issue was, is and always will be.. 'SAFETY' not job opportunities..not 'my cousin is already there' not "better lifestyle".

What most of us who are unmoved by the blatant emotiveness of such stories are on about is that. SAFETY is the issue.. which is available much MUCH closer to Afghanistan than Australia.

Thus we ask 'why' do they come to our country? Clearly..it is not about 'safety' but about opportunity.

For me.. perhaps I'm a bit more wary than many, as I know how these things pan out over time. I've mentioned before that our early missionaries gave life to the Malay/Muslim villagers near us, attending to them and helping them. But such love and compassion only works for THAT generation. It is not transferred to their offspring.

Just like a "Pharaoh who did not know Joseph" arose in Egypt..so a generation which only knows "rights and self interest" and couldn't care a damn about non them will arise from such people if they manage to stay in ethnic/religious ghetto's.

For this reason.. my compassion is limited to those who my elected representatives agree to allow in, under our control and discretion.

Just because someone is poor does not give them the right to rob a bank... nor to circumvent our established refugee program.

Yabby

“You miss the point entirely Bronwyn, but I expect no more from you.”

No, Yabby, I haven’t missed the point. Nor have I missed, once again, the patronizing arrogance in your words, but then again ‘I expect no more from you’ either.

This particular discussion is about the asylum seekers Australia has deported back to danger and/or death. Mourning the suffering and death of the latest victim is a perfectly valid response.

“The problem with our bleeding heart greenies, as distinct from some thinking greenies, is that they are driven by emotional instincts, seldom understanding the big picture, which is what matters.”

I understand the big picture every bit as clearly as you do, Yabby. I also understand that the big picture consists of individual lives which each have value.

“Clearly its mainly young males, who can afford the journey and bribes, who travel to Australia. What about women and children left in the camps? Why should young, relatively rich males come first?”

It’s common for extended families to sell all they own in order to scrape together enough money to pay for the passage of one family member. Younger males are usually the fittest and most likely to survive the journey, which is why they are chosen, with the hope that eventually other family members will be able to join them.

“Our bleeding heart greenies are of course in a quandry on this one. On the one hand, they want to limit Australia's population, on the other hand, they have yet to say how many millions should be accepted, before even they are overwhelmed.”

There’s no quandary, Yabby. I’ve stated many times that we should increase our humanitarian intake to at least 20 000 and at the same time reduce our immigration program by a similar percentage. I imagine my views are not dissimilar to those of many green voters. They certainly accord with official Greens policy - “The Australian Greens want an immigration program that is predominantly based on family reunions and other special humanitarian criteria as defined by international human rights Conventions.” No confusion there, Yabby.

*I also understand that the
big picture consists of individual lives which each have value.*

In that case Bronwyn, you would understand that we are talking of
tens of millions of individual lives, which each have value.
Reality prevails, we cannot take tens of millions.

*It’s common for extended families to sell all they own in order to scrape together enough money to pay for the passage of one family member.*

Its also well known that the biggest money spinner in Afghanistan
is heroin. By your system, those best at drug dealing, with the
most money, would be first on the list of refugees. Sorry, but
we agree to disagree on this one. What about women and children
who don't have two cents to rub together?

* we should increase our humanitarian intake to at least 20 000 *

Golly gosh, 20'000 hey, when there are tens of millions wanting to
come here? If you open the floodgates, how many hundreds of thousands
a year will you accept? When will you pull up the drawbridge?

If the Greens should ever get anywhere near Govt, sounds like I
could charter the Queen Mary or similar and bring them here in
their tens of thousands and make a great quid along the way.
They would all have individual lives, which have value. What would
you do then?

Yabby and Polycarp babble away telling others to get 'the big picture', while displaying their own blinding ignorance of the global situation and the role of Australia in dealing with the issue.

Put away the Bible for a couple of days and study the UNHCR information which is readily found e.g. at: http://www.unhcr.org/basics/BASICS/4034b6a34.pdf Keywords: refugees, asylum seekers, Internally Displaced People, Returnees, Stateless People.

Connect the dots between Australia and Iraqi refugees, the world's most rapidly expanding group, up to 2m as at September 2007, or Afghanistan, the nation producing 20% of the world's refugees in 2007.

Australia is nowhere to be seen on the league table of nations taking large numbers of asylum seekers. (Compare South Africa, US, Kenya, France, UK, Sweden, Canada etc.) Makes a bit of a mockery of Yabby's specious and ingenuous claims that "....Australia cannot take them all" and Polycarp's "Why the heck have they ended up in AUSTRALIA rather than closer places?".

As for views that differ from Yabba's and Polycarp's being driven by emotions, I wryly observe that they both seem quite heated about their own prejudicial opinions.

Polycarp's hateful psychobabble: "But such love and compassion only works for THAT generation. It is not transferred to their offspring". No use asking him for evidence for such an amazing claim. He'll disappear from this forum for a while, or pick up on some other obscure point.

The so-called Christian doesn't recognise how unChristian he is in declaring that his "compassion is limited". Nor how absurd his debating techniques: " Just because someone is poor does not give them the right to rob a bank... nor to circumvent our established refugee program."

Yabby takes us to the other end of the silly spectrum suggesting that because it's "...well known that the biggest money spinner in Afghanistan is heroin...those best at drug dealing, with the most money, would be first on the list of refugees."

Yabby, if you're making squillions in drugs at home, you'd want to get on a leaky boat and come to the magical land far far away, eh?

Yabby, I often agree with you, but in this case I think you're dead wrong.

Those hapless souls who were sent back from refuge to their deaths in Afghanistan weren't wealthy drug lords. They were refugees who had what were evidently well founded fears for their lives in Afghanistan.

There is absolutely nothing illegal about someone in their position seeking asylum in countries such as Australia that are signatories to the UN Convention. It is to our collective shame that these people were returned to be murdered.