*As for our system for vetting asylum seekers, it is designed with the convenience of Government and the best interests of business in mind*

Sheesh RobP, there was silly me thinking it was a humanitarian
programme, to help the truly destitute. Now we all know how
downtrodden women are in places like Afghanistan. We know of
150'000 Burmese in camps in Thailand, mainly women and children.
Yet there we are, taking in many fit and healthy young Afghan and
Sri Lankan males in their 20s, not those really in need. So your
point could be correct and Australia should be ashamed of itself for
not having a claimed humanitarian programme that is humane!

*A lot of the people you speak of will probably never get asylum in any country. And guess why? Because they're not pushy enough. Nasty Catch-22 that.*

Yet you support a policy which willingly supports the pushy,
to the detriment of the destitute. Hardly humane eh?

*You repeatedly call for an overhaul of the 1951 Refugee Convention. What did you have in mind? *

I certainly do rstuart. It needs an agreement which lets Govts
close loopholes, as they arise, to avoid abuse of the system, as
occurs now. In Australia's case, take all refugees from refugee
camps, apart from nationals of adjoining countries.

I remind you that Pakistan has large refugee numbers from Afghanistan,
India has large numbers of Tamils. Thailand has large numbers of
Burmese, all in need of aid and genuine refugees, or they would not
be in a camp.

For reasons of diplomacy, Australian politicians won't withdraw from
the Convention, yet fight off boats with sticks. So they are guilty
of creating the problems we now have. It needs fixing once and for
all.

rstuart,
Yes, righly or wrongly we put the welcome mat out by signing the refugee convention and 1933 people, that arrived LEGALLY, took advantage of that and were granted asylum in 2007-8, and good luck to them. I have no argument about that.

Have you any rational reason as to why the illegals would choose to take the hazardous route by sea, when it is cheaper, quicker and safer to arrive legally by air.

Logic tells me that the illegals know they would not qualify as refugees or they have something to hide, like a criminal record.

RobP,
You state "To label someone in a derogatory manner when they have done nothing wrong is actually an example of injustice. (Take note, Yabs)"
Yeah, right, butter would not melt in their mouths!

They lie on visa application to enter Malaysia.
They engage people smugglers to take them to Indonesia
They enter Indonesia illegally
They engage people smugglers to convey them to Aus
They enter Aus illegally
They sabotage the boats so we will pick them up
They destroy their identities and lie about that to our officials.

Yes these desperate, broke, starving poor buggers have even been known to threaten our security, threaten themselves and their kids, just to get their own way. According to you they have done nothing wrong, the poor little lambkins, they are pure as the driven snow.

Come on Rob don't be so naive and gullible for the rest of your life.

There are thousands of refugees in camps that could do with your sympathy and support. These illegal frauds are taking the places of proper refugees

Good on ya,Banjo.Sock it to him.
Starving illegal newly arrived illegals.Indeed
RS take another look at the faces of the men women AND children and tell me where you see a single immaciated face.
Turn the buggers around and send them off back and in their place double their numbers and ask the Sri Lankan govt.to let us air lift the REALLY starving and destitute people. We'll take of them, educate the children and give those who want, work to feed their families.

socratease

Banjo,

Nice. Find all the negatives you can and lump it on all of them. And, that was in response to a call to justice! Nothing exceeds like excess in your case. I suggest you get out of whatever hole you live in and meet some of these asylum seekers. It might open your eyes to what they're really like. It might surprise you or even make you realise your own weaknesses and prejudices.

Yabby,

I know you understand the nuance I've tried to bring into this debate mostly by what you've decided to answer and what you haven't. Unfortunately, you've wimped out and taken the side of the "winners". Nothing like keeping your bottom dry, eh Yabs? At least for the time being anyway.

Banjo: "The illegals have lied and broken laws all the way from their home country and our laws in entering Aus illegally"

Persecuted people usually have some charge levelled against them in the country they are fleeing, so that isn't significant.

As for the rest - the Australian government calls the boat arrivals unlawful, not illegal (eg see http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/MIG/detention/subs/sub129d.pdf ) Since they wrote the laws I'll take their word over yours. I presume the same applies in all other countries. The difference between unlawful and illegal is "not expressly allowed by law" and "expressly forbidden by law". In other words, as far as our government is concerned they aren't doing anything illegal.

Banjo: "Can either of you show me one instance where any illegal entrant has acted honestly and honerably, without bribing anyone or lieing?"

The question does not deserve to be dignified with an answer. Everyone has lied at some stage in their lives, and bribery is a part of normal life in the countries they come from. On top of that your argument doesn't meet the same standard: you can't prove they all did lie and bribe.

Banjo: "You still have not answered my questions set out in earlier posts."
Banjo: "Can either of you explain why they would destroy their identities"

You have asked this question before, and I have answered: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171#75727

Banjo: "can you give reason why the illegals would not get visas to enter Aus legally?"

Because we say they don't have to.

Banjo: "give a reason why they would come by sea when it is cheaper ..."

The airlines are libel for return air fares if they are rejected, and so won't take them.

Banjo: "I will remain against the illegals until such time you ... demonstrate that their actions are honourable."

Your definitions of honour, lie, cheat and deceive are wildly different from the norm. If they are allowed to stay, according to our laws they have not lied, cheated or deceived about their reasons for coming here. If they aren't allowed to stay who cares?

RobP,
You made the claim that the illegals have 'done nothing wrong'. I have respondedby giving you what i consider they have done wrong and why my conclusion is that the illegals are of poor character.

If you think otherwise, then state your case. Demonstrate that these people are of good character and deserve respect. Show me their 'good side'. That their actions are correct and their intentions honourable. It is no argument to say I am only looking at negatives, you provide the positives!

rstuart,
Yes,as shown to RobP, the illegals break laws all the way to here.

You are really grasping at straws in trying to show a difference between the words 'unlawful' and 'illegal'. My dictionary uses one word to describe the other, so there is no difference. You perfer unlawful because you think it sounds softer.

I have provided evidence where illegals have not acted honestly.

You have not given any logical or valid reason as to why the illegals destroy their identies.

Aus law requires every non citizen to hold a valid visa when entering Aus. We can, and do, detain those that do not have a valid visa. the refugee convention makes a point that asylum seekers must obey other countries laws.

The airlines are only liable to return a person if the person does not have a valid visa. If a peron enters with a valid visa, applies for asylum, and is rejected, that person is responsible fo rhis own cost of return journey.

You both should simply admit that the illegals you support are unscrupupous opportunists who take advantage of our generousity, to the detriment of genuine refugees.