ShazBaz, Tamils are typically Hindu - although I have met Christian Tamils.

Stezza: << can anyone provide a definition we use in Australia to determine if people are genuine refugees? >>

Australia uses the UN definition, i.e.

<< Under the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is a person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted on account of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country.[1]

The concept of a refugee was expanded by the Convention's 1967 Protocol and by regional conventions in Africa and Latin America to include persons who had fled war or other violence in their home country. >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee

Leigh: << No illegals should set foot in Australia, ever! >>

Leigh, you know damned well that asylum seekers are not "illegals", but you mendaciously persist in using that deprecatory term in order to vilify them. Indeed, you don't even seem to acknowledge that genuine refugees exist.

You are a truly hateful person.

Demonising asylum seekers is a ruse to con the gullible bogan voter in marginal seats that immigration is not at too high a level, yet when Howard did this he took immigration to record levels and the current government appears reluctant to significantly curb all immigration in the long run. Our rivers are drying up, excess people create higher living costs for all but the rich with increased housing costs, and higher food costs as our [too cheap] irrigation water is used inappropriately, such as for the raising of cotton and rice and excess grain to be used for producing manufactured and processed foods (industrial grain/food).

Once, we had similar levels of fecundity to the 3rd world and when contraception was easily available both our people's fecundity as well as hardship in large families almost went out the window. If the 3rd world is suffering, they should curb their fecundity but their leaders want a high birth rate for more factory fodder and cannon fodder, plus religous leaders for their own empire-building.

Only those benefiting from high inflows are those interested in hiring cheap unskilled/semiskill labor and those in property etc.

Yes indeed Jennifer, there is much sadness and sorrow in the third
world. So the question arises, what is the solution?

Would you like me to charter the Queen Mary and bring them here?
How many would you like? 5 million, 10 million, you name it, it
can be done.

Will it ultimately solve anything? I doubt it, for global population
is increasing at 80 million a year, more refugees being created, mostly in countries where there
is an ever growing population problem.

Fact is that Australia cannot solve the world's problems, so trashing
this country, to ultimately solve nothing, IMHO makes no sense
at all, apart from a short term feelgood solution.

But I am merely one of 22 million, who all can express their opinion
on this. Somehow I doubt that the majority of Australians agree
with you.

If too many people fighting is creating the problem in the first
place, they ultimately need to solve their problems in their
countries, or cut their populations with good old family planning,
so that there won't be all this figthing over land to live on.

Simply transferring the problem to Australia, is not going to solve
anything.

Spindoc - I like your thinking. If the 'do-gooders' had to take on this responsibility we wouldn't see too much sponsorship though.

As for CJ Morgan - if he/she thinks that people arriving ad lib on leaky boats having country hopped and paid smugglers a lot of cash for the fare is kosher then I suggest he/she has another think about what this might mean - not only for Australia's security but also in terms of health and bio-security.

I'm with Leigh on this one - guess that makes me a hateful person too eh

Spindoc just may have something there, maybe we could make it a bit like HECS according to their degree of desperation and length of time spent waiting. This sounds like Tom Hank's character in The Terminal, but that doesn't apply to asylum seekers, who are usually just out of sight, out of mind. The Yanks have 'Gitmo, we have Christmas Island (Nauru is on the reserves list)and the Excision Act.

If you believe in the Law of Karma, or what goes around comes around, one day it may well happen to one of us, and maybe a prominent one of us at that, and show us up for the scrooges we've really become.

"Over the last few days I’ve begun noticing similarities in the facial characteristics of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. Both are fleshly, in the archaic sense of plump or fat. There is an impression of a certain self-satisfaction that may be the inevitable consequence of this fleshliness, or that may have more interior causes about which I will not speculate."
How can anybody take seriously an article that starts like that? A correlation between self-satisfaction and fleshliness or a correlation between self-satisfaction with something else perhaps demonic possession?
And please CJ: "You are a truly hateful person."
Fancy a comment like that coming from the most consistent purveyor of bile on this site.