Banjo: "You are really grasping at straws ... My dictionary uses one word to describe the other"

I have other definitions. But with regards as to how the government saw it it appears you are right - my apologies. http://www.immi.gov.au/media/letters/letters04/Press_Council_28_June.htm So we sign a convention that allows them to come, then we pass laws that say they can't come, then if they are true refugees ignore the laws. Just wonderful.

Banjo: "Yes,as shown to RobP, the illegals break laws all the way to here."

You did not show Banjo, you asserted. The difference being you have not provided any links to back up your assertions. Your earlier defence to this was "this is Online Opinion" and thus you are just expressing your opinion. Quite so. But equally, I think your opinion is a load of hog wash, and you have made no attempt to show otherwise.

Banjo: "I have provided evidence where illegals have not acted honestly."

You imply _all_ asylum seekers have acted dishonestly, and your basis for this is some have? But again you didn't show even that. As far as I can see you have provided just one link: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm#top It described some pretty outrageous behaviour on both sides, but not the sort of dishonesty you alleged. You just assert, over and over again as if repetition will make it true.

Banjo: "The airlines are only liable to return a person if the person does not have a valid visa."

True. And it was you who have been repeatedly pointing out they don't have one, are unlikely to get one, but if genuine will be allowed in anyway. QED.

Banjo: "You both should simply admit that the illegals you support are unscrupupous opportunists"

Heh. And you should wait for the department of immigration to do their investigation and make a determination rather than making wild accusations at people you don't know from a bar of soap based on flimsy newspaper reports. But what is the odds of either of us taking the others advice, eh Banjo?

>>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!<<

Banjo,

It's hard to point to positives when you are talking about people whose history and culture you know very little about. But how about we look at the history of migration in this country? How about the good work ethic that was introduced to Oz during the time of the Snowy Mountains Scheme? How about the hard-working Greeks and the small-business entrepreneurial culture that brought with them? What about the hard-working Vietnamese and their restaurants, etc. Remember what we had before then - meat and three veg, meat pies, beer, snags and shrimps on barbies (and caricatures throwing shrimps on barbies), milk bars, fish and chip shops and pubs. Then there were our cultural icons: Zig and Zag, Hoges, Bert Newton, Rolf Harris, The Leyland Brothers, Dame Edna. That was about it. Ugh. There's much more variety today which is a good thing. And that's been brought about because of migrants - the "marauding" Vikings of the age - thank goodness.

What's to say the current crop of asylum seekers won't also similarly add to Australia once they find their feet? There's absolutely no evidence they won't.

*There's much more variety today which is a good thing. And that's been brought about because of migrants*

RobP, this is where you lose the plot. I have seen nobody suggest
that we take no refugees. I have seen nobody suggest that your
variety is a bad thing.

I am sure that you have met an asylum seeker who is "a very nice
person".

You are bogged down with the little picture, rather then looking
at the bigger picture.

So lets look at the big picture. Would you agree that a "humanitarian
progamme" should focus on being humane, helping those least able
to help themselves? Would you agree that Federal Funds should be
spent as cost effectively and wisely as possible? Would you agree
that a programme should be structured, so that rorting is kept to
a minimum?

I put it to you that the present boat trade fullfills none of those
criteria and that there are far better ways of doing things that
do.

That does not mean that that your "variety" will be lost. That
does not mean that the same or more people cannot be helped.

What it does mean is more effective Govt expenditure, a better
outcome in terms of helping those with the most need, far less
rorting of the system that we now have.

I put it to you for those reasons we need to change our present,
out of date programme, which leads to much misery and sorrow, as
we all can see. Nothing is going to change, until we change
the present system

The new refugees certainly will make big contributions to Austyralia.They already are..The Tamils and other Indians from Hyderabad and Bangalore just to name two areas in India, the Chinese and Afghan Hazaras etc all will.The important point that I wish to make is that they got here once we had screened them. They followed the established rules of immigration, like those European migrants after WW11 who made this country richer and stronger.I have no trouble with that at all.
What we are talking about are those who are the cheats, blackmailers criminals like Sanjeeva Kulaendrajah alias "Alex" and his ilk, queue jumpers, who have been booted out of Canada and other countries but who use their guile and wealth from people smuggling to eneter Australia.
They should be keept away from our country.

socratease

Yabby,

>>RobP, this is where you lose the plot.<<

Not so. The point I was getting at is that migrants who were once treated with suspicion when they first landed on our shores – whether they were Europeans after WWII or the Vietnamese boat people – have managed to fit in well. Just because someone “jumps the queue” or does something unorthodox to get here, does not mean they won’t similarly make a good contribution to the country. You could say it’s a case of “Who dares wins”. In other contexts, like in business, that’s seen as a very desirable quality. Why not with migrants?

>> Would you agree that a "humanitarian progamme" should focus on being humane, helping those least able to help themselves? Would you agree that Federal Funds should be spent as cost effectively and wisely as possible? Would you agree that a programme should be structured, so that rorting is kept to a minimum?<<

These are all desirable outcomes. But they can only occur in a perfect world. As has been said, the boats are still going to come because people are fleeing some form of repression and can’t make it into government-authorised or conventional migration streams. I would agree with your statement provided the time is right. The question is, if you tighten up the migration system now, what effect will that have on genuine asylum seekers?

>> I put it to you for those reasons we need to change our present, out of date programme, which leads to much misery and sorrow, as we all can see.<<

You could just as much blame the former Government for this sorrow (for taking a hardline approach in the first place) as you can the current Government (for increasing the pull factors given that the hardline defensive wall is there). The whole system is complicated, in a state of flux and responding to the gamut of conflicting political stimulus in the debate. You aren’t going to quickly solve this problem via a bit of idealism on the fringes of the debate, however desirable the ideal is.

"Just because someone “jumps the queue” or does something unorthodox to get here, does not mean they won’t similarly make a good contribution to the country. You could say it’s a case of “Who dares wins”. In other contexts, like in business, that’s seen as a very desirable quality. Why not with migrants?"

It is not a good quality for business, it maybe good for bad business but not for effective management and long term outcomes. They are only getting into international or Australian waters then being rescued, by calling ahead for pick up. This is gross inefficiency and not a good quality for business. It maybe be good for corrupt organisations or mafia type goings on, thats about it.

Want open borders then you have to have personal responsibility. No pick up service. Do away with minimum wages (has happened anyway), consider cutting back medicare and pensions only for people who have contributed for at least 10 years, like the US social security scheme. High migration countries cannot maintain social benefits unless there is criteria in who can apply for migration. Even now we have a shortfall for the baby boomers retiring so immigration exists only so younger people can come with money, work for money and support older Australians. So if we replaced with open border then ability to service these pensions would not be available without huge tax hikes. Or even better expectation for children to look after their families as should be the case really. I never understand why someone is paid a pension when their kids are 50 year old multi-millionaires.

Plus they come here for permanent residency and we never signed any UN convention to provide that. So perhaps best to do Howards way with Temporary protection Visa. Especially Sri Lanka, a war of propoganda if ever I saw one.

Anyway when you introduce social benefits you curb free movment across borders. Times have changed. Want it your way then it would need to be pay your own way. Which will happen anyway, no need to rush though.