Oh, and 'mea culpa' to you all, too! Now seriously, the so-called evil "people smuggler" label does appear to be a device for some politicians and self-styled "humane and compassionate types" (as described in the comment above), to create a credible scapegoat for unthinking folk to demonise. It's the old, selectively 'blame the victim' ploy. It is obvious that all parties involved are victims of their situation, be it one of poverty, hunger or violence. We know fear will drive people to extremes. The Australian people are also victims of the asylum seekers' fearful situations. Perhaps the problem will no longer be a global issue when the UN, or more suitable bodies, assume responsibility for stabilising the situations around the world causing the fear that makes refugees flee their homes.

Yabby: "I put it to you that far more backpackers have been murdered in Australia, then returned asylum seekers thrown down any wells."

And I put it to you the only reason the number is low is because we do our level best ensure all genuine refugees stay. I sincerely hope that if we sent all of the accepted ones back the vast majority would be badly persecuted when they got there, with perhaps a few of them haunting us with their dead eyes staring from the bottom of wells. If not the bureaucrats doing the evaluating have done a really poor job.

Yabby: "they pulled your emotional strings on that one"

Hardly, but I do enjoy rubbing your nose in such a graphic illustration of what would happen on a large scale if we just refused all entrants.

Yabby: "So why don't they turn up in Singapore or Japan for instance?"

Singapore isn't a signatory to the UNHCR, http://www.unhcr.info/refugees_farm/Signatories.htm
and thus turns away refugees http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/417415/1/.html I don't know what is up with Japan - maybe this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8342898.stm

Banjo: "the refugee convention makws a point of 'asylum seekers' having to obey a countries laws."

I thought you were just playing dumb, but I am beginning to think you really don't get it. Up to WW2, the standard way to handle people running away from a meat grinder with nothing but the shirt on their back was to put a gun in their face and tell them to piss off, preferably back into the meat grinder. Possibly because it happened to a fair chunk of the citizens in Europe in WW2, this came to be thought of as really poor form. And so the 1951 Refugee Convention was born. The whole point of it is to say what you can do with people who turn up on your door step with nothing but a sob story and their shirts. It makes no sense to ratify the thing if you explicitly exclude the very people it is meant to cover. And thus Banjo we accept such people despite our laws. Got it?

CJ Morgan

Well howdy if it aint couzin CJ . Must be that old Ludwig and Col are makin it too hot for you on tather thread, so you hightailed it cross the bijou to seek asylum with us kinsfolk ?
I gotta tell yah cuz –we ain’t hitched to no refugee convention in these parts.So don’t you go preachin that city folk stuff bout “compassion” and “humane treatment” here.The last preachin man who came here pah cut up with a tada knife and fed to the gattors.
And we dont serve grits or moonshine neitha. And if Ludwig & Col come around huntin for yah with them hound dogs and shot guns ,we ain’t going to hide you with the hogs eitha – ya yaller liva varmint.

CJ Says: “ Unfortunately… the repetititon of a lie doesn't make it any truer.”
Horus responds: Well, now you’ve learnt the principle, how about putting it into practice.

CJ says: “ we humane and compassionate types have better things to do with our time and energy than waste them on providing a soapbox for haters like you”
Horus responds: [LOL] Yes, you sound very humane and compassionate … & humble too.

Banjo: "These FACTS which have been known for years"

Oh, I see. You don't understand why I keep questioning your facts. Perhaps an example would help.

Let us say someone is trying to show the refugees arriving by boat today are in fact not refugees at all, but merely liars and cheats. An argument for this is that it is well known they fly to close to where ever the boat is, toss away everything bar the shirts on their backs, and then hope we will believe their sob story. The point being: they must of had visas, passports and what not to get on the air plane. So this boat thing was just a ruse. Sounds like a reasonable argument at first glance, doesn't it?

But when politely asked to provide a link that these refugees did in fact fly, he refuses. Instead he loudly and repeatedly claims it is common knowledge, insinuating the other person is a bit of a dill for not knowing it. At this stage this merely seems impolite. After all, if it is such common knowledge surely it must be easy to provide a link.

Anyway, much later on he lets it slip it has been common knowledge for 10 years. Hold on. 10 years. You mean we aren't talking about the current refugees at all? In fact, wasn't 10 years before 9/11, when airport were relatively easy to breeze through without documents? See - when more context is supplied, the argument falls apart.

Now you wouldn't think the nice people we have on OLO would try such an underhanded debating technique. In fact perhaps they wouldn't - perhaps this sort of thing happens because they were unaware of the significance of the information they are relying on being 10 years old. Nonetheless, if they had of provided a link to back up their assertions all this confusion would have been avoided.

I hope this makes it clear why I generally provide links to the facts I rely on, any why I think it would be a good think if you did too, Banjo.

*This quality is extolled as a virtue in business, but thought badly of when people use it to try to extricate themselves from a bad spot.*

Once again RobP, a programme based on humanitarian principles, should
not be selecting the most pushy, who might do well in business,
but the most deserving. Your little story on this one is that this
way we get better migrants, but that is not the point of it, its
about being "humane". Otherwise, those best able to come to Aus
from Afghanistan, would be heroin growers and traders, for that
is where the money is.

*Hardly, but I do enjoy rubbing your nose in such a graphic illustration of what would happen on a large scale if we just refused all entrants*

Ah but you are failing rstuart, for of course two million refugees
returned to Afghanistan when the Taliban were defeated. How many
landed up down wells?

*I sincerely hope that if we sent all of the accepted ones back the vast majority would be badly persecuted when they got there,*

Err is that why so many boat people seemingly later return to their
homes countries on holidays, pockets stuffed with money, the envy
of their old friends that they left behind?

Rstuart, I am sure you are a lovely fellow, but you certainly
are a sucker.

One good thing about the internet, its slowly teaching people
to become a bit skeptical, but it takes time. People seemingly
need pain to learn.

Re RStuart :

RS says :1)” The only reason the number [ of murdered rejectees ] is low is because we do our level best to ensure all genuine refugees stay.”
As has been pointed out repeatedly , RStuart wouldn’t know a genuine refugee if he fell over one – nor would most of our officialdom.In a previous post he was asked to show us the –stringent processes /procedures that ensured that only genuine claimants were passed –and he failed dismally

RS says: 2) " [ Banjo ] I thought you were just playing dumb, but I am beginning to think you really don't get it. Up to WW2, the standard way to handle people running away from a meat grinder with nothing but the shirt on their back was to put a gun in their face and tell them to piss off, preferably back into the meat grinder. Possibly because it happened to a fair chunk of the citizens in Europe in WW2, this came to be thought of as really poor form. And so the 1951 Refugee Convention was born. The whole point of it is to say what you can do with people who turn up on your door step with nothing but a sob story and their shirts. It makes no sense to ratify the thing if you explicitly exclude the very people it is meant to cover. And thus Banjo we accept such people despite our laws. Got it?”

No, it's RStuart who doesn’t get it!

One of the points that Banjo is making --and which RStuart is either wilfully ignoring or simply unable to comprehended—is that asylum seekers are NOT above/ exempt from Australia immigration law. And thus if they arrive here without proper papers they are illegal until we process and accept them . Unable to counter that point RStuart wanders off on a tangent waffling on about history and compassion.
TBC