good, agreed, thanks.

There was an article a few years ago about the invasion threat to Australia. The article pointed out the it wasn't a military invasion but a human one.

The issue of refugees is a difficult one. However it could easliy be manipulated because it would appear the Australia is a soft touch.

Sadly our states are not prepared for the predicted population growth. The foundations have yet to be laid by our state pollies, right now we have water restrictions, public transport is failing, there are not enough public hospital beds.

Sure the increasing level of traffic is really, really annoying.

Sadly for many countries the people that they need to stay, to make their country a better place, leave.

There is plenty of evidence to see that the LTTE were financed by the Tamil diaspora in the west. Loads.

I have no problem with accepting people from anywhere but if I cannot even have a say in how it is managed without being persecuted for my opinion then perhaps I should seek asylum elsewhere. It is still a democracy last I looked.

Such a vexed issue this immigration debate!

Has it occurred to the people who feel most deeply and are most vocal about this issue, as I am sure there are many, that most people who migrate from their country of origin do it for a very good reason?

Silly question you may ask but would it not be more sensible for the most vocal among us to focus our attention on doing something about the source of the problem instead of band-aiding the result? Why are we not targeting AusAid and NGO's who work in these countries to promote education of women, family planning and health instead of trying to find homes for millions of displaced people. We could be good world citizens and take our whole population (22 million) in as refugees every year and it would not rate a mention in the "Mumbai Times" or "Beijing Bugle" let alone consider what it would do to our quality of life here if this were to happen. Not even an issue worth considering so why do we take any at all, just the lucky few and good luck to them.

We need to rethink our attitude to population in holistic terms instead of carping on about a few boat people, after all Australia is a poor second choice for most who would much prefer to stay in their country of origin if there weren't starving or being shot at! When are we going to get a Government leader with enough balls to face the issue of population pressure front on and do something about it while we have some resources to bring to bare on the problem. Why can we not set an example here and say "that's enough" and deal with the fictitious economic problem of a stable sustainable population.

I mean it doesn't make sense. The Tamils are clearly racist and seek to maintain racial and cultural purity and they are poor refugees. But we simply question the method of arrival and are branded racist, xenophobe, scared of invaders etc. Maybe you should start preaching to the Tamils instead. Learn to love multicultural society and your fellow man tell them, do not blow them up becxause of their race. Tell those that really need such a lesson. Instead we allow them their fundraising for terrorism based along racial lines. Does not make sense.

However if such a reason for war exists perhaps we should recruit them to assist us in white racial purity for ourselves. Now that maybe worth compassion as freedom fighters wanting cultural and racial homogeny is then a worthy cause worth hero status, apparently.

The author mentioned the Norwegian vessel the Tampa and how 'unfair' it was for Australian authorities were. The author believes that refugees should be accepted at face value because he believes that almost all are genuine.

By comparison it is interesting that in the first six months of 2008 Norway, which would be considered 'soft' by many, rejected 59% of its claimed refugees as not genuine cases.

Media reports have already noted that some of the 78 Sri Lankan 'refugees' on the Australian customs vessel in Indonesia were in fact living in Indonesia before trying their luck with Australia.

If Norway can easily prove that 59% of its refugees are frauds just what is the Australian government thinking of with its almost automatic acceptance of all of those who arrive by boat or plane as 'refugees'?

Why is it so wrong for Australia to decide who is a genuine refugee when it is OK for Norway and every other country to do the same?