>>Sheesh RobP, are you now suggesting that people should not be held responsible and accountable for their actions?<<

Yabby,

Another quote of mine you've cherrypicked and where you've gone and made a mountain out of a molehill. I bet if the hole was drilled in the boat, it was done by a small handful of them. The rest would have been in a situation where they couldn't do anything about it. So, are they all guilty of pulling a swifty? No way.

It's like being at a bad school. When you actually go to that school you know that there are the really bad few, a few hangers-on and a lot of quiet types that try to keep their head down and stay out of trouble. It's the same in any group, including a group of asylum seekers. That doesn't mean the quiet or modest ones are bad just because they go to a bad school, does it? Your argument is tarring everyone with the same brush.

As for our system for vetting asylum seekers, it is designed with the convenience of Government and the best interests of business in mind as much as it is for really deciding whose asylum claim is kosher and whose isn't. So, this idea that we get genuine cases *only* when they are processed through our system is pure tosh.

>>There are frankly far more deserving cases out there, then the 78 which the tv cameras are dangling in front of you.<<

Probably true, but yet another glib Yabby-quote. 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.

Banjo,

I'm sure there are some bad applicants out there. And hopefully they'll be screened out. But the cases you hear about are the worst ones. I'll bet that with 90% of asylum seekers that come here by boat, they'll be no trouble to anybody and the ratio of bad eggs in the asylum-seeker community is no different to what we already have in this country.

socratease: "I want to know why the same rules dont apply to all peoples from all over the world"

I'll assume you genuinely don't know the answer and have an enquiring mind. This may your later question "What kind of idiot is rstuart?". A naive one apparently.

There are two ways we take refugees. One is we go scavenging the best from the various refugee camps around the world. The other arises because we ratified the 1951 UN Refugee convention. It says in simple terms if refugees arrive on our shores we will provide them safe haven until whatever they were fleeing from disappears. Thus there are two sets of rules.

socratease: "Is there no end to these invasions?"

In the short term yes - this current episode will end when the situation in Sri Lanka settles down. In the long term no. While we remain a signatory to the Refugee Convention we have made an standing offer to all genuine refugees in the world. That offer is: if you can make your way here we will take you in. You probably don't like that off, which is something I can completely understand. What I can't understand, and in fact dislike intensely is those here that blame the refugees for taking advantage of our offer.

Banjo: "the illegal entrants are frauds, liars and cheats"
Banjo: "It has been well known for years that the illegals firstly fly to Malayasia thence by boat to Indonesia."

Given the first statement is at the best a wild distortion of the truth I don't think asking proof of the second is unreasonable. To put another way, your hyperbole undermines your credibility.

TheMissus: "yet people support this?"

The 1951 Refugee Convention was put in place so people fleeing for their lives would not be turned away at gun point. It fits my "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" test. Obviously miscreants try to game the system, but we filter them out. That they may drown or die while trying to game our system isn't something that worries me overly.

The evident national sensitivity about unscheduled arrivals of asylum seekers suggests the necessity of a referendum question at the next Federal Election: ¨Should Australia continue to be a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol?¨

Banjo: http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/maritime_incident_ctte/report/f04.htm#top

You can't simply accept that if people are genuinely fleeing for their lives, they are going to pull every trick in the book?

We aren't above blame ourselves. We out put this 1951 Refugee Convention welcome mat, saying if you come to our shores we will protect you. Then when people try to take advantage of the offer we send out war ships to stop them.

What happens next is fairly predictable. The refugees fishing boats and our war ships play a high-stakes game. This game has fairly well understood rules that boil down to "no-one attacks anyone, or allows others to get hurt through inaction". These rules pretty much eliminate any advantage our war ships would normally have. So much so that you'd think we would always loose, but apparently towing back to Indonesian waters and removing most of their fuel was a bit of a winner. However, I can just imagine what Indonesia thinks of this tactic.

Yabby: "As a skeptical observer, I simply point out that lack of rationality."

My apologies Yabby. I went back through your posts and that indeed appears to be the case. The only exception I could see is your calling people who refuse to disembark hijackers.

You repeatedly call for an overhaul of the 1951 Refugee Convention. What did you have in mind? It seems to me the major problem you have with it is it allows refugees to go shopping for the nicest safe haven. That is only partially true: they can only do that until they are granted asylum. Until that happens they are allowed to go knocking on doors to find someone that will grant them asylum. Given the intent of the convention that provision seems necessary to me. It also seems reasonable that if they are in a state that doesn't honour the convention (such as Indonesia), they are allowed to move onto one that does.

RobP,
You take the cake for being niave and gillible.

The illegals have lied and broken laws all the way from their home country and our laws in entering Aus illegally, and you say there is just a few 'bad eggs' amongst them.

They ALL are dishonest and deceitfull.

You still have not answered the questions I put to you!

rstuart
Banjo: "the illegal entrants are frauds, liars and cheats"
Banjo: "It has been well known for years that the illegals firstly fly to Malayasia thence by boat to Indonesia."

As pointed out to RobP above. The illegals have broken laws and lied from the moment of leaving their home country. They have made false declarations to obtain visa to enter Malaysia, they enter Indonesia illegally, and they have criminal intent to enter Aus illegally. they then hide their identities to avoid being sent home. As I have said before, if they were fair dinkum refugees, they would come to Aus by air and seek asylum when here.

You still have not answered my questions set out in earlier posts. I believe you cannot.

if you want proof that the illegals fly firstly to Malaysia and then come by boat to Indonesia. Todays news, our PM has got an undertaking from Malaysia to make people smuggling a criminal offence in Malaysia. Why, to thwart the people smuggling traffic to Indonesia. And, Indonesian coast guard shot two illegals while trying to escape apprehension and detained a boat load of illegals bound for Aus. This took place between Malaysia and Indonesia.

>>You take the cake for being niave and gillible.<<

Banjo,

You take the cake for getting a little idea in your head and pretending it's true for ever and a day. To paraphrase an old adage, you've made your bed and you're determined to lie in it.

Like a lot of people that have a fairly narrow life experience, you've pounced on an example of bad behaviour and extrapolated onto all when that's not warranted. To label someone in a derogatory manner when they have done nothing wrong is actually an example of injustice. (Take note, Yabs).