The basic points of this issue are not addressed by Susan.

First what constitutes adequate border security and secondly who should decide the origins of our annual quota of humanitarian immigrants.

So tell us Susan what is adequate and reasonable border protection and who should decide who are our humanitarian immigrants?

I think you should express your choice instead of simply critising those who demonstrate the guts to express theirs.

Go on show some courage so we can all assess the reasons for your position which at this point simply appears to be anti Howards border protection and advocating people smugglers deciding our annual humanitarian intake.

A legitimate Asylum Seeker's primary concern is the preservation of their person. Accordingly, they may come however they please and in the instance of some of them, it is simply not a realistic consideration to stop by a local consulate or embassy to file an application, assuming the individuals concerned even understand this legal requirement.

There are a lot of stateless people in Indonesia and what happens in the case of some of them is that they simply purchase a new Indonesian identity from corrupt officials. So from say a Chinese name, they adopt an Indonesian name say. As for their past, whose to say? Though I can say honestly that one such individual has confided in us in regards to this and has also traveled to Australia.

Whilst these documents i.m.o. would be unlikely to stand up to internal Indo scrutiny, I doubt that inquiries by Australia would render any confessions of corruption from local officials. Now that Jakarta has defanged their Anti-Corruption commission and handed back investigative powers to the notoriously corrupt police, matters appear to have deteriorated in this area.

So, what would you rather have, a stateless person with bogus i.d. coming in even for a holiday under the pretense of legitimacy with money in their pockets, or someone on a rickety boat?

Of course, the boat person is intercepted by our water security, who are already on the payroll and gaining great experience with real life security situations, though at a safe distance, who then inflict the full security and legal apparatus on all applicants, plus at least temporary incarceration for observation.

It goes with out saying that there are lots of illegitimates looking for a better life and also a few that represent a security risk, but also I wouldn't be surprised to learn that there are also a few who bring in very valuable information.

Every state that participates in the Asylum protocols share this burden knowing that there are people who abuse the system. It is a given, not an opp for b.s. and spin.

Baxter “Go and meet a refugee who has come by boat, imagine yourself in that situation and then check how you feel. Maybe nothing, but it's worth a try.”

Why do you not do that and then go and meet a refugee in a camp in the horn of Africa and that real refugee that sorry, ,some one with more money than him bought his place in the limited quota…before you suggest to anyone else what they should do.

“The dinosaurs on this forum should move on too”

No, if we did that we would take our wisdom with us and leave the likes of you completely clueless

Turning Australia into a repository for every stateless person on the planet is not a solution.

Addressing the reason for what makes them refugees is… however that requires military intervention and so many left wing whoosies find that as unacceptable as locking up illegal immigrants until their credentials are proven.

Imho with so much human distress coming out of Africa – the whole continent should be re-colonised.

Yes Susan, the dog whistle is out again. Where does all this hatred of different people under extreme duress come from? Is it part of their DNA? Do they learn it as part of their potty training, or suckling at the breast? Of course, when Africans get here from the hell holes of the camps in Africa their treatment by this ilk is much the same. Thus, you get the Andrew Bolt's and Alan Jones' of this world with their fog horns out.

Having worked closely on the Pacific Solution, and having seen the perfunctory violations of human rights on the Coalition's watch, the one good thing about the Howard years was that it brought this 'interesting' bunch out into the open, away from the dark corners of the body politic. We can now expose their invariably simple minded postures to the bright light of day and subject their thinking to rational analysis. Some of the usual suspects are on display here, sprouting their nonsense on a complex subject they will never know much about, as knowledge does not really serve their purpose.

The standard line of the hate merchants is that everyone who supports the entry of asylum seekers is soft in the head - credulous buffoons who put human rights ahead of national interest considerations. It seems, in their small minds, that boat people are all economic refugees prepared to leave their cultural moorings, families and friends and everything familiar for the good life in our Islam demonizing, minorities marginalizing utopia. A little while back Senator Scullion came out with the enlightened view that our bio-security is under threat by boat people. [In good Southern US accent]... you guys that think like Nigel - that doggy don't huuunt, & keep taking the pills

*that boat people are all economic refugees prepared to leave their cultural moorings, families and friends and everything familiar*

Sheesh Kraken, you are no Einstein lol, you really arn't. Or perhaps
still tied to mommy's apron strings?

I remind you that everyday normal migrants all over the world,
regularly leave family, friends and everything familiar, to live
in other parts of the world.

Whilst this for you, with your limited perspective of life, sounds
incredibly difficult, I assure you that for millions of everyday
people its no big deal.

When your bleeding heart brigade start to focus on all refugees
in camps around the world and not just those who can afford to
pay the bribes for a long trip, I will take some notice.

If somebody is living in a refugee camp, without 2c to their name,
we can assume that they are in fact genuine refugees. That is
certainly not the case with those sailing here, who need a bit
of money, a bit of determination and the ability to tell a good
story.

Personally my sympathies lie with those in camps. If that is
beyond you, that is your problem and not my problem.

Kraken,

I assume that your flatulent diatribe is in lieu of actually having a rational position. None of your invective addresses any of the issues I raised earlier.

No one is arguing that the many boat people don't have a valid reason for application for asylum. However with 20% of the world below the poverty line, and vast areas of conflict, this probably applies to at least 1 billion people on the planet.

With the refugee quota at about 12000, the boat people have paid about $10 000 to jump the queue to the top of the list (in the 100s of thousands) displacing those who have a far greater claim.

The issue is not whether to accept refugees, but whether we take the most deserving or the least.