keith - I don't "only want refugees". Given that Australia's population already exceeds its sustainable carrying capacity, I'd rather we didn't have any immigrants at all. However, when there are so many genuine refugees in the world I could live with accepting more people on the basis of need rather than economic aspiration, at least on a temporary basis. Please note that I said "to" the level of current 'skilled' migration, not "at" that high level.

Despite the disingenuous bleating of some, it's well-established that the numbers of asylum seekers in the world fluctuate due to so-called 'push' factors. The current spike in our region is clearly due mostly to the fallout from the Sri Lankan civil war.

Shadow Minister: << For someone that pontificates on economic issues >>

Yes, you do tend to, don't you? Personally, I tend to avoid economic comment because it's not area in which I have any great expertise.

Sorry CJ,

I had you confused with someone who had inkling of economics.

Statements like "I could live with accepting more people on the basis of need rather than economic aspiration" shows that skilled immigration is not an area in which you have great expertise either.

Skilled migrants are not begging to come to Australia, rather, Australian businesses have to compete with other countries for the engineers, doctors etc.

I have myself brought over engineers and technicians with skills unavailable here from "disadvantaged" countries such as Canada, England, South Africa, and had to pay a bomb to do so. The industry I am in managed to reap far more value than they paid.

Similarily Australians are being head hunted for positions around the globe, and no one is stupid enough to suggest that they are economic refugees.

Hang on CJ, you've now confused everything ... what do you want?

Is it

1. 'I think we should completely abolish 'skilled' immigration and similar programs, and increase our intake of bona fide refugees substantially.'

2. '...increasing Australia's quota of acceptance of genuine refugees...to the level at which we currently accept economic immigrants.'(And I don't understand the splitting of hairs over 'to' and 'at'.)

3. 'I don't "only want refugees".'

4.'I could live with accepting more people on the basis of need rather than economic aspiration,...'

or 5. 'I'd rather we didn't have any immigrants at all.'

You've sort of covered all possibilities except the Howards policy and Rudds equally confusing policy setup. Want to have a go at doing that too?

;-)

If you think I am laughing at you ... well I am not, but I am smiling at the different positions you are adopting with each of your postings. And remember they are on the public record.

keith, while you may or may not be laughing at me, you're most definitely playing convoluted games in order to justify your own untenable ethical position.

My position's quite simple. As an environmentalist, I recognise that Australia's human population has already exceeded the country's carrying capacity. I therefore would like Australia's population to stabilise as quickly as possible, and ideally to reduce over time. A corollary of this is that I oppose the kind of mass 'skilled' and economic immigration that has been encouraged by successive governments of whatever persuasion.

However, as a humanist I recognise that there are many people in other parts of the world who have had to abandon their homes, communities and everything they know because of war, persecution, famine and other calamities. I recognise and support Australia's obligations under the UN Convention. It would be great if any of our governments of late had also recognised these realities and our obligations, but they seem more interested in trying to avoid them.

Therefore, the short term solution seems to me to axe the economic immigration program, in favour of accommodating people in real need in substantially greater numbers than we have been to date. Meanwhile, address the 'push' factors by more assertive diplomatic means, and participating in the cooperative establishment of the kinds of 'queues' that don't currently exist, but which the refugee-bashers demand. Perhaps the influx of significant numbers of genuine refugees might prompt our government to look beyond the next election towards more sustainable approaches.

[cont]

I'll tell you what we don't want, and that is for children to be locked up indefinitely, in the presence of distressed adults, particularly post the Australian Society of Psychiatrists advising that to do so is to terribly risk their mental health, which often leads to permanent neurological damage as has occured, and we have had a retired judge testify in this place visa vi same.

To do so, in my view, constitutes child abuse, and thus those responsible are, yep, you guessed it, arguably child abusers.

This place and all the way back to england has of course a long history of abusing children doesn't it?

..

And what else is there? Oh yes. I seem to recall, visa vi the so called sri lankan push factor, that the chinese armed them up and with the addition of the new weapons they decimated the Tamils? Do I recall correctly on that? And where else? Oh yes. Darfur. Another delightful display by the Tienamin butchers. And last but not least, we have had our own dear *Prince Harry* testify that his buddies legs got blown off in Afghanistan by yes indeed folks, chinese rockets.

But you Luv the chinese guvment don't ya *Shadow?* They give us money don't they ey mate? And that's what important ey? The economics. Human Rights are not to be connected with trade ey? Is that how it goes?

<CENSORED>

I note *Bruce Haigh's* comments currently on ABC re his view that australia should have remained impartial on the matter of the Tamil conflict.

And at the UN Human Right's NGO conference in Geneva in 2000, one individual went so far as to inquire as to why it was, pursuant to the principles of self determination, that the tamils couldn't be recognised as a state party for purposes of the relevant international court? The Sri Lankans allegedly tried to have the individual tossed out, but were unsuccessful.

;-)

I did also note though what appeared to be a hate filled Tamil gathering at the same time. Such a waste of Human Life.

I agree with Shrode. Yes, these refugees should be 'processed', and their credentials checked. But why is it necessary to incarcerate them, while this process is carried out?
Whatever happened to the concept of 'innocent, until proven guilty'?
Incarceration is not only unfair, it is bloody expensive. These people, if genuine refugees, would probably be delighted for the chance to work in Australia, while their claims are processed.
The taxes they pay could be used to deport the ones who don't deserve sanctuary.
Frankly, Howard and Ruddock made me -for the first time in my life- ashamed to be Australian.
Whatever happened to the 'Land of The Fair Go'?