I would like to think that all these people with enlarged social consciences and magna sensitivities to the plight of people living in other countries who are desperate to make their way into Australia have all their lives been working tirelessly and making huge sacrifices and donations to the desperate and poverty-stricken in their own country or have they been blind to them all this time.Their consciences have suddenly come to life at what is going on in the world ouside.

They have had a timely reminder that they should help those less fortunate than themselves.Right.

How many shades of sheer hyprocrisy are there? Its mind boggling.
socratease

Socratease,

My husand is unemployable as his career was as a firefighter and those skills are useless to business, plus he is way too old for the 30 something boss to contemplate. So he does the SES thing up here in the Far North and has the rich small l liberals use his labour for free when a branch falls on their eaves after a breeze passes through. Then when someone does something silly and gets lost they complain of the cost to the taxpayer.

This is a true story.

Stezza

The definition used in Australian law comes from the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees:
"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country..."

The reason there is a legal divide between refugees in overseas camps, and those who enter Australia, is because the Convention provides that, once a person claiming refugee status has entered the country, you can't kick him out without first determining whether or not he is a refugee. If he is, then he is entitled to the protection of the signatory state, the first right of which is the right not to be returned to his home state.

On the other hand, with people offshore, even if they have been determined to have the status of refugees, that still doesn't give them a right to come into Australia.

That is why there is a big premium on getting into the country by hook or by crook. Even if they have entered unlawfully, in the sense that they didn't have a visa which the law requires every non-citizen to have, still they are lawful in the sense that Australia's obligations under the convention prevent their being deported unless they have first been determined to be refugees.

Spindocs point is an excellent one. It is easy to talk about our "collective greed"; but the relevant collective greed is for social security.

Those in favour of sponsoring refugees should be free to do so and indemnify the Commonwealth. I also would sign up for it. On the other hand, those doing so should not also be taxed for it, and neither should anyone else who doesn't want to pay for them.

All Refugees are Illegal Immigrants in the same way that all people in receipt of Newstart allowance are Dole Bludgers - until they can prove they are actively looking for work.

All single mothers are welfare cheats cashing in on baby bonuses (another rising epidemic if you believe the media) until their circumstances prove otherwise.

The wealthy are all brazen tax cheats until they're audited - and so on.

It all comes down to your own attitude and disposition - not necessarily somebody elses circumstances.

Using these labels says a lot more about the accuser than the accused doesn't it?

blairbar: << the most consistent purveyor of bile on this site >>

I love the way that those at OLO who want to vilify the most oppressed and wretched people project their own behaviour on to people like me who speak up for human rights and compassion.

In terms of "purveying bile", there's no way that I could possibly compete with the Leighs, Cols and ozzies of the hater contingent, but strangely the supercilious blairbar doesn't seem to have a problem with their odious vilification of some of the least fortunate people in the world.

I regard it as a measure of success when someone who has been as vacuous in their commentary in this forum finally shows their true colours, rather than pretending to sit on the fence.

YES SHAZBAZZZA you have it wrong.

They are in western dress and speak fluent English because they are the wealthy ones.

They pay $5000 each to get here! They speak English back home which means they are $$$$$.

You = naive dumb westerner who is gullible

Them = ppl who want to exploit you, Medicare, and CENTRELINK! And think white ppl stupid too