*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.*

Oh but I've named both, rstuart. Economic refugees claiming to
be asylum seekers, is the huge loophole that even the UNHCR accepts.
All that "humanitarian" bleating has caused enormous social problems
in Europe, with the majority of asylum seekers being economic
refugees. Open the gates and they flood in. So genuine refugees
land up missing out, Western countries pay an enormous cost, its
a lose lose situation.

Australia should take all refugees from refugee camps around the
world, and none from the boat trade. If people arrive by boat,
transport them to the nearest refugee camp or set one up somewhere
in the third world, with costs shared by developed nations, including
places like Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc. Economic migrants will soon
lose interest, not so with genuine refugees.

*It is not something a nation of bleeding hearts does*

I seem to recall that we flew quite a few Kosovars into Australia,
later on, when things died down, flew them home again.

*It was pointing out Afghanistan is still a dangerous place*

Its a dangerous place for Australians who shoot at potential
Taliban members, for they tend to shoot back. Meantime 20
million Afghans live there every day. If we risk living, then
we risk dying, rstuart. Would you flee Australia if a few shots
were fired here, or would you stay and defend your country?

*Right now blaming boat people for our population growth isn't even vaguely tenable.*

But you refuse to name an upper limit rstuart. 1 million, 10 million,
20 million? What is your upper limit? The world is becoming more
crowded, its a growing issue, not one that will simply vanish.
Its at the very core of the issue about who decides who comes here.
Just anyone on a boat, or Australia.

Spare a thought for the time when because of global warming people from devasted low-lying areas of the world suddenly flee in vast numbers to Australia which will make the numbers of illegals arriving now look small by contrast. What happens then to any limits we may set today to counter the continuing arrival of economic and undeserving so-called refugees? With the deserving cases will arrive the same number if not greater numbers of illegals.How do you, my erudite readers, propose to the government an intelligent and effective plan to save the trashing of Australia? We dont have a navy or airforce to deal effectively to cover the east, north and western coastlines.
Has the time come to start sinking as many as possible to deter the unwelcome whilst saving others whose lives have been affected by the inability of the advanced countries to act cohesively to prevent such natural disasters?
Dont we have a moral responsibility to form humane policies of discriminatory handling of the situation?

socratease

If a sea level rise creates refugees, here´s a plan:

1. The Commonwealth will establish an arrangement with the governments of only those threatened Pacific islands closest to Australia for the orderly arrival and settlement of refugee populations.

2. The Commonwealth will use its External Affairs powers to designate where the settlers will initially be placed with provision for ongoing health, welfare, education and employment by arrangement with the States.

3. The Commonwealth will establish an arrangement for the safe transfer of all other irregular arrivals to a designated United Nations refugee facility in another country.

4. The Commonwealth will refuse future entry into Australia to all those it has transferred to a UN facility.

Re RStuart

"[ Yabby] 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”
Here’s a hint : the Whitlaw govt was able to put in place provisions that excluded PNG from OZs commitments under the convention.

“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”
Funny thing, RStuart, but I do recall you make that very same suggestion [sending them home, that is] in one of your earlier posts on a different thread. Strange isn’t how the worm turns. Leastways, that’s one thing you’ve learnt.

“Did I? Quote where I made such a claim [ promoted the virtues of the boat people]”
I would put it this way RStuart you are promoting their character by refusing to acknowledge any defects.
--Someone points out they sabotage their boats – you refuse to believe unless (Apostle Thomas-like) you can put your finger in the holes.
--Someone points out they destroy their papers – you make excuses.
--Someone points they hijacked the Oceanic Viking –you sidestep it.
It sounds a lot like advocacy to me –If we could deny anyone’s wrong doings –we’d likely to end up with pretty virtuous/blameless characters.

“I agree population growth risks trashing Australia…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”
Three points are pertinent here.
1) There is a principle at stake here--many feel we are being conned.
2) One boaty doesn’t amount to one extra citizen – there will invariable follow many relations via sponsorship.
3) It may have missed your notice –a lot of things apparently do – but the same groups that are advocating for the boaties/ UNHCR sanctity are also warming up to deliver their spiels on AGW refugees, and that roadshow eagerly anticipates ticket sales in the tens of thousands.

Yabby: "Economic refugees claiming to be asylum seekers, is the huge loophole that even the UNHCR accepts."

The UNHCR doesn't accept them. A quote from the UNHCR handbook on handling refugees http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf : "If he is moved exclusively by economic considerations, he is an economic migrant and not a refugee." Nor is it Australia policy is to accept "economic refugees".

But I don't recall you claiming any of this before. If you did say something specific, point out where. All I recall is a lot of hand waving about how the system was full of loopholes, without you pointing to a single actual loophole in the regulations.

Yabby: "I seem to recall that we flew quite a few Kosovars into Australia, later on, when things died down, flew them home again."

Given the standard of debate on this topic "I seem to recall" isn't going to persuade anybody. A link giving some background?

Yabby: "Meantime 20 million Afghans live there every day."

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(2001%E2%80%93present) and other pages, civilian casualties rose around 30% this year. There are still 1.7 million Afghan refugees in Pakistan, and 1 million in Iran http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_refugees . Most people would find your assertion that Afghanistan is safe laughable.

Yabby: "But you refuse to name an upper limit rstuart. ... 20 million?"

Refused? No one has asked before. But since you asked: the absolute limit is determined by our population policy. Right now we are growing it by some 300k/year, most of it via aspiring cook and hairdresser immigrants apparently. I would not have a problem with replacing these "non-essential skills" immigrants with refugees of any sort. If my numbers are right, that would limit refugee intake to the 100k-200k range.

However I think our population should be stable. If we changed our immigration policy accordingly, I would be strongly opposed to allowing asylum seekers to subvert it. At the current numbers of boat people it would not. But if there was a surge and it did, I would be all in favour of ditching the 1951 Refugee Convention.

*A link giving some background?*

You really can't remember anything rstuart. Here is one link of
what the story was about, but its 10 years old, when the internet
itself was not yet so common.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/stories/s37081.htm

Basically a few thousand were flown in, later a few thousand were
flown out again.

*Most people would find your assertion that Afghanistan is safe laughable.*

Yet 20 million still live there. In Iran 30'000 people a year die
in car crashes, as they are bad drivers. Iran is not safe either!
You are using Australian standards to decide what is safe, they
simply don't apply in the third world.

*that would limit refugee intake to the 100k-200k range.*

So there we have it, you do have an upper limit and would ditch
the UN Convention if it posed a threat. Its just numbers you
are arguing about, not principle.

*The UNHCR doesn't accept them*

The UNHCR knows very well that is virtually impossible to prove
that somebody does not fear something. If you claim a fear of
spiders for instance, if the onus on me is to prove you wrong,
it is virtually impossible, except if during questioning I can show
that you are contradicting yourself and lying.

Next thing, if they lose appeal after appeal, as here and in Britain,
it is still extremely difficult to move them, if they refuse to
go. Special planes have to be chartered in some instances, prisoners
handcuffed and forced to go, not a pretty sight and not cheap either.
This stuff has all be documented on BBC TV etc. Are you totally
unaware of what is going on in the real world out there?