Well said CJ Morgan, thats it in a nutshell. Also well done Spikey and Bronwyn.
Bruce Haigh

Well said Bruce, you just keep rallying on the troops :)

CJ, we will have to agree to disagree on this topic.

If it were up to me, I would rewrite and update the UN Convention,
for its neither fair nor equitable. Many in Europe have made the
same comments, for the asylum seeker problem has turned into a bit
of a disaster in many areas and its not the most deserving who
are being helped, but mostly those who seek a better economic
future in a so called rich country.

I'll make my point again. Why do you and others think that those
who have money are more deserving to live in Australia, then
those left in refugee camps (lots of women and children) without
two cents to rub together? I'm sticking up for the real underdogs
here, while you are barracking for those who can struggle to the
top of their respective food chain.

I have set no figure on how many asylum seekers that Australia
should take each year, that is for all Australians to debate and
somehow try to agree on a figure.

What I am saying is that selecting them by whoever sails to our
shores is not a fair way of making that selection, for it ignores
those most in need, who are stuck in refugee camps.

Next point, Australia needs to agree on an annual intake, whatever
it is that people agree on. Simply accepting all who sail or
fly here, even if its a million a year, is not a sensible policy,
or you will land up with the same problems as they have in Europe.

The easier you make it, the more will flock in.

CJ: Thanks for the lucidity - as Bruce said “That’s it in a nutshell”

No matter how many posts we put on OLO and no matter how much we denigrate those on the other side of the debate, the fact remains that

1) Our obligation is mandated (is that the actual legal term I mean?). and
2) We accept far less than many other countries

Where on earth did the idea that refugees are “flocking” to Australia come from? If you read the United Nations Committee for Refugees information you’ll see that the countries that are being flocked to are, unfortunately, the countries most economically marginalized (i.e. poor). But it is obvious from previous posts that it is only a certain kind of refugee who is being made representative of all displaced persons from a myriad of backgrounds.

As I said previously, getting dogmatic over a subject where one’s only viewpoint revolves around popular media or folk wisdom, is rather pointless (if not self-indulgent).

I also feel it is both noteworthy and rather tragic that those who seek to bluster their inhumanity away with righteous explanations of exactly who they feel legitimizes their concern, are those who most loudly proclaim their Christianity. The denunciation of those who express their concern for their fellow-human beings as being from the fringes of lunatic society communicates a far more succinct message about their brand of religion than all the toxically smug posts that such people post in such prolific and repetitious detail

Yabby

Asylum seekers, refugees and migrants are distinctly different people.

Refugee have fled their own country because of a well-founded fear of being persecuted because of their race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion and are unable or unwilling to get protection in their own country (Convention on the Status of Refugees).

All refugees who come to this country are chosen by Australia. Most have been living in refugee camps. Numbers are decided year to year by our Government.

Asylum seekers are people who claim to be refugees, but whose claims have yet to be evaluated. Under international law, which Australia has committed to under successive governments for decades, we have a system to decide which asylum seekers qualify for refugee status. Those who are assessed not to be refugees are sent back to their home countries.

If our asylum system is both fast and fair, then people who know they are not refugees have little incentive to come and make a claim in the first place. That's why it was important to make the reforms that the Rudd Government has made this year.

Asylum seekers who are later deemed to be refugees make up a minority of our humanitarian program.

Refugees and migrants are fundamentally different, and are treated differently under international law. Legally arriving migrants, who make up the vast bulk of our newcomers every year, choose to move in order to improve their future prospects. Refugees have to move if they are to save their lives or their freedom.

Let's not confuse asylum seekers and refugees with non-authorised migrants. To do so is to act without compassion for people in fear of their lives.

You say: "Australia needs to agree on an annual intake, whatever it is that people agree on. Simply accepting all who sail or fly here, even if its a million a year, is not a sensible policy, or you will land up with the same problems as they have in Europe."

Leaving aside the rhetorical flourishes - that is exactly Australia's policy. No need for Polycarpian scare-monger with half-truths and exaggerations.

I'm a little confused by some of the claims peripheral to the discussion of this article.

dickie says, in the 8th post in this thread,:

"Edmund Rice is the founder of the Christian Brothers, represented in this saga by Phil Glendenning. I as an atheist, have had much to do with the Christian Brothers and I reject the cynicism of posters on this thread. I do not regard them as "bleeding hearts."".

The article author, David Corlett, has embedded a link in the article in which the words 'Edmund Rice Centre' are highlighted, of which Centre he claims Phil Glendenning, the person who's travels are followed in the documentary, to be a director. Clicking on the words 'Edmund Rice Centre' in the article takes one to this page: http://www.erc.org/ , which is more fully described as being 'Worldwide ERC (formerly Employee Relocation Council)'. ERC describes its function in these terms "Worldwide ERC® provides current issues, trends, and best practices for the movement of employees within the United States as well as global mobility.". Are readers meant to take it that the letters 'ERC' ultimately derive from 'Edmund Rice Centre', even though there is suggested an additional source for the acronym?

The author seems to promote the interests of the Edmund Rice Centre. If dickie is correct that Phil Glendenning is also advancing the agenda of the Christian Brothers through the Edmund Rice Centre, and by necessary implication that of Worldwide ERC®, does this not reveal this secondary movement asylum seeking issue to be fundamentally a conflict between Australian national policy and the desires of the See of Rome?

The article attempts peddling guilt to Australians at large. It says: "....nothing has been done to rescue the hundreds of people who were denied protection by Australia and sent back to danger. ......in order that such people be saved, we as Australians need to accept responsibility for the acts that were perpetrated in our names. ...... We are a lesser nation for the fate to which we have returned these people."

Or so Rome wants to have it.

Bruce,

Attempting humour you are not capable of; attempting to denigrate me and my views, will not make you’re moral outrage any more valid.

I notice you could find only three people to say “well said” to. That should tell you something.

Romany,

You seem to be something of a country-jumper yourself. Last we heard you lived in China denying that you were not eating food fertilised with human ordure. You would have been the only person in China eating clean ‘fresh’ food. Now we hear a story about a valiant escape from South Africa. I hope it wasn’t the wonderful black government of Mandela or the last thug you felt the need to escape from after all the bile we get about white governments.

The voices you call “stridently negative” are very positive in the view of people you choose to call ‘strident’. They are positive voices for Australia. They are the majority of voices.

I can understand why you think it’s ‘brave’ to cut and run and leave your fellows behind – because you have done exactly that. You do, however, get marks for doing it legitimately.

Perhaps you could tell us what happened. Why you had to leave South Africa – you claim most of us are obtuse and need to listen. I would be very interested in what was required of you to get a visa. I would also like to know how immigration authorities arrive at the conclusion that illegals deserve asylum when they have no papers, they could be anyone from anywhere, and nothing is know about them except what they say.

I know for fact that the appeals written for unsuccessful country shoppers all to the same formulae, just with different names.
I believe quiet strongly that we are being conned by pseudo refugees, and the people employed in immigration are too stupid to know it.

I also find it significant that people who come to Australia, dissatisfied with their country of birth, make up a large percentage of the minority living here who constantly complain about Australians, and our government.