* But for some reason you can't bring yourself to say that. In fact, have you said what you would change? I can only recall you throwing mud.*

Rsuart, methinks you must be getting a bit long in the tooth,
slowly losing your memory and a few marbles. I have many times
listed what I would change, that would include withdrawing from
the Convention, or simply naming Australia's terms, for its a
volutantary Convention after all and our pollies are too piss weak
to withdraw completely.

* I happen to think TPV's were a bad idea*

Not so rstuart, for it makes it harder for economic migrants trying
to cheat the system. We grant 4 year permits to 457 workers after
all. If a conflict is over, there can be good reasons to send
people home. Like now for Tamils.

*But why does this matter?*

Read your own previous post about Aussies being shot. Of course
soldiers are shot at, duh.

*So, you would be in favour of accepting boat refugees if they were mostly women and children?*

I would be in favour of taking more women and children from
refugee camps. There would be no need for them to sail here, besides
they would not have the bribe money handy, for they would be those
in real need.

* So now it is my beliefs?*

You are the one promoting the virtues of boat people.

*You obviously don't want to be in the situation where we are forced to give safe haven to all refugees that arrive on our shores.*

Quite correct, Australia can take its share of refugees, but
Australia cannot save the world by trashing Australia.

Howard was correct. Australia should decide who comes here. It
should not be decided by a boat race bsed on bribery.

Yabby,
“At least RobP shows some realism, acknowledging that there is no way that our bureaucrats can accurately determine, who is here for economic reasons and who is genuinely in need of asylum.Even with documents, its difficult enough to get valid information from the third world, let alone when people ditch documents.”

Spot on - --here’s another one they let through [ though, this was on the liberals watch]:
www.abc.net.au/.../printfriendly.pl?...abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s879582.htm

Two things are of note:
1) What does it say about our processes that we apparently didn’t know the background of such a high profile individual ? &
2) Here we have the classic case of someone being granted asylum and returning to the old country.
Note the wimpy comment: “ Philip Ruddock acknowledges that the former Prime Minister returned to Bangladesh a couple of times, but he argues that doesn't mean he was safe”

ROFL

Saturday the 21 November. By next Saturday there'll be another 5 boatload of refugees/asylum seekers.. And then the following week therte'll be more of the same and we'll still be here saying the same things all over again and they'll still keep coming. The pity is that these's nothing we can say or do (AS YET) that'll make the slightest difference.

All I can say is: "When we elect the next government let us never forget.Let's kick the lot of these miserable failures out and bring in the Libs."

socratease

Further to the above:
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2003/s879274.htm

Note these:
---“A former Bangladeshi prime minister now living as a refugee in Australia ON A DISABILITY SUPPORT PENSION is denying newspaper claims published here today that he's corrupt and that he stole food from his people.”
---“My life was endangered and I could not get any justice and so for that reason I could not go back”
Yet we know from the first/above report, he did go back -- TWICE!

How about some imaginative plans to improve the Federal immigration policy? The level of community dissatisfaction demands reform. Anyone thinking out of the box? Let´s hear some fresh ideas. No more ridiculously pointless arguments. Please speak up.

Yabby: "Rsuart, methinks you must be getting a bit long in the tooth,"

Methinks the pot is calling the kettle black. The kettle isn't dening it, BTW.

Yabby: "I have many times listed what I would change, that would include withdrawing from the Convention"

Maybe you did Yabby, but if so I missed it. I went back through your posts, and evidently missed it again. I guess it is unimportant as you have definitely said it now. It is a relief. Finally the negative side of the argument suggests a course of action that would actually address their concerns.

But not always realistically. You claim the convention has loopholes, and we should be naming Australia's terms. But sadly you don't (can't?) name the loopholes, or say what terms we should change.

Yabby: "its a volutantary Convention after all"

What is your point? We are a sovereign country. Signing anything is voluntary.

Yabby: "We grant 4 year permits ... if a conflict is over ... send people home."

I am discussing Howard's implementation of TPV's. Instead of setting up refugee camps we integrated them into our society for 4 years. If you think sending home is easy after doing that Yabby, you're kidding yourself. It is not something a nation of bleeding hearts does. So if sending back is what you want to do TPV's are a bad idea.

Yabby: "Read your own previous post about Aussies being shot."

My previous post wasn't about Aussies being shot. It was pointing out Afghanistan is still a dangerous place; in answer to your implication all Afghan refugees could safely go home.

Yabby: "You are the one promoting the virtues of boat people."

Did I? Quote where I made such a claim.

Yabby: "Australia cannot save the world by trashing Australia."

I agree population growth risks trashing Australia. But you clutch at straws if think our intake of boat people would. If it was several times the numbers we now accept we would still be in serious population decline. Right now blaming boat people for our population growth isn't even vaguely tenable.