Bushbasher, fyi I was having a lighthearted dig at Bronwyn, for
on another thread she wrote this:

*I learnt long ago that Yabby's heart is well and truly ruled by his head. And of course he thinks
the reverse of the likes of you and me.*

Now if you or anybody else can show me that if the heart rules the
head, or emotional engulfment, is a sensible way to live, I would
like to hear about it. I did in fact include a little smiley
at the end, hoping it would be understood as a friendly dig.

*In fact I'd go further to say that you have let your rational cap behind when describing people smugglers as business-men.*

Fractelle, not at all. For as I have pointed out repeatedly, it
is the policies of the Australian Govt, which they are free to
change if they wish, which create the demand in the first place.
They should not be amazed if people respond to that demand. In
fact for their policy to not contradict itself, they should be
encouraging an accredited, safe, transport service.

Failing all that, they are free to withdraw from the 1951 convention,
or see to it that it is brought up to date, as I have been suggesting.

So what is irrational about all that?

Rudd had good reasons to use Christmas Island, for Howard had built
them a luxury 400$million centre, for 800 people. That is half a
milllion $ per head. You might not receive the news reports that
we do here in the West, but by what we have heard so far from the
press, lobster for Chrissy, free i-pods, down town shopping and
allowances, fresh fruit and veggies to the point that the locals
are missing out, the list goes on. These people are not exactly
doing it tough and would no doubt be emailing all their friends
to join them. Fair enough, I don't blame them for wanting a
cushy life. I blame Australian Govts for lacking the testicles
to introduce policy that does not contradict itself.

yabby, sure. sorry to intrude on an insider dig. i'd still prefer a little more heart in your analyses ...

Yabby

Your claims: "You might not receive the news reports that
we do here in the West, but by what we have heard so far from the
press, lobster for Chrissy, free i-pods, down town shopping and
allowances, fresh fruit and veggies to the point that the locals
are missing out, the list goes on. These people are not exactly
doing it tough and would no doubt be emailing all their friends
to join them."

Any links to verify your claims?

BTW, if you had bothered to do some research, since you clearly avoid reading any posts that conflict with your world view, you would know that Rudd's 'watering down' of border protection is minimal. The current influx of asylum seekers are due to conflicts in their home countries.

Let's consider the situation since Rudd was elected because Howard apparently solved this problem on a global scale.

Let's forget the 4500 that arrived by plane during that time and only focus on the 180 boat people.

Of those, let's forget about the ones from Sri Lanka and New Guinea and concentrate only on those from the the Middle East.

Let's forget that historically 90% of all boat arrivals have been found to be bona fide refugees and only consider the mode of transport.

So who is to blame?

Let's start with those who "profit from the misery of others". I'm not talking about doctors or lawyers but People Smugglers.

Well it's obviously the fault of the people smugglers who provide that service!

But without refugees they would have no market to ply their evil trade so it's obviously the fault of the refugees themselves.
So why are they leaving their countries?

Some posters believe they may be the spearhead of some vast invasion fleet that is going to destroy our society from within but let's simply imply that their claims are all fake and just want a better way of life.

Let's forget those who had their claim rejected and been killed on their return to the Middle East or the woman who had her 8 month old fetus forcibly aborted on her return on China.

So what's wrong with their own countries? Are they being "pushed out" by their own circumstances or "pulled in" by our own soft immigration policy?

Well they seem to have been ruled by despotic regimes and may now be at war with the West as a result.

How did these tyrants get into power in the first place?

Most were sponsored and even supported by us in some way until our circumstances changed, simply because they had something we wanted.

Bushbasher
“and the vast majority of asylum seekers are legitimate refugees, even as judged by the dodgy legal process set up to evaluate them.”

Not correct. About 12% total are finally recognised as having refugee status.

Ginx
“Firstly: as Bronwyn has indicated elsewhere, the status 'illegal' is yet to be proved. You may not like that, but it IS the case.

Not correct. Under the Migration Act, it is against the law for a non-citizen to enter Australia without a visa, and the Act’s term for someone who does so is “unlawful non-citizen”.

Fractelle
“This policy remains in breach of the refugee convention, which requires protection without discrimination for ALL refugees, regardless of how they enter a country.”

Not correct. The UN convention on refugees requires protection for those *who already have been recognised* as refugees. Those removed to remote islands have not yet been recognised as refugees. If and when they are so recognised, they are given protection without discrimination,so the policy is not in breach of the Convention.

Someone
”the demonizing of asylum seekers was one of howard's most disgusting acts. “

Both parties are tarred with the same brush; there is no significant difference between them. For example, it was the pre-Howard Labor government that introduced mandatory detention for children.

Stormbay
“The most sensible thing to do is withdraw from the refugee convention...”

Yes.

JamesH
Your post shows the commonest underlying concerns: that by coming here people are entitled to so many benefits paid for by the government taking the money under compulsion from the population. Notice that the real underlying issue is not about immigration per se. It is about the welfare state. Why should anyone, not just refugees, receive without working? It it’s a matter of social justice, doesn’t social justice apply to other peoples?

All
I personally think that refugees are a great net benefit to Australia. But I also recognise the fact that, if you get enough Afghans in one place, you get Afghanistan

In response to Ludwig's questions, I think that the most obvious consequence if Howard hadn't shamefully appealed to Australia's racist underbelly around the Tampa incident would have been that he wouldn't have been re-elected. Also, several hundred legitimate refugees wouldn't have had to endure the inhumane conditions to which they were subjected by his regime before they were eventually accepted.

What makes you think that Howard's policies towards asylum seekers stopped them from coming? They continued to arrive by boat and air, but were no longer seen as newsworthy by the tabloids.