More evidence that Kevin Andrews is completely out of touch - the idea that the people who need the most help should be the ones we're turning away cannot possibly one that appeals to most Australians.
Not to mention the fact that "Africans" is an absurd category on which to base judgement - I gather that means educated skilled applicants from relatively peaceful democracies like South Africa are to be rejected in favour of those who have grown up in non-African cultures of violence, intolerance and discrimination?
While I don't hold much hope for getting the 10.7% swing needed against him this election, if Mr Andrews is still my local representative in 4 years, I will be moving.

I think there may be a problem here that many contributors are unaware of.
First may I say that refugees do not, under international law, have any right to stipulate which country they wish to live in. They can of course make a request of the first country they arrive in but, at that point, they are no longer refugees. This is something which is often misunderstood. Australia has very few people who qualify as refugees or asylum seekers although they naturally receive people who have qualified (or should have qualified) elsewhere.
The other problem here though is a cultural one and often relates quite specifically to men from some areas of Africa. They have often never had what we would think of as a regular job where they have been required to attend work each day for a set period at set times.
They hunt when necessary but it is the role of women to be providers and carers.
The government's apparently racist response has been made on the grounds that some of the men (sufficient to cause concern) have returned to war zones in preference to taking up regular employment here. Some men I have spoken to feel insulted that they are expected to take up paid employment. It is not in their cultural background.
I am not condemning or condoning their response merely stating it.
When this is understood the government's response becomes understandable and I hope it will help some of the correspondents here understand as well.

Dear FrankGol

that was a remarkably restrained and balanced post... you didn't have to slide into the 'cynic' mode though.. we get the point..and you reference to the Government deciding was most welcome. I hardly think that any of us would like some ratbag in some remote office (who may or may not have been 'encouraged') to make decisions which can effect our culture, social and political climate.

I'm going to live dangerously here.. and actually agree with Pale. At least in part.
Why ? well it boils down to this if we have a choice between those who hold dear..the same values as us.. and have the best chance of adapting, integrating and assimilating.. and another group who are the opposite.. well clearly.. common sense tells us to choose the 'more suitable'. It just so happens that our social values and culture are largely shaped by the JudaoChristian ethic..and values.. no matter how many people currently attend Church services.
The underlying values are still there.

EXAMPLES.. I cannot imagine what our society would be like of we brought large numbers of people who practice FGM.. or.. child marriage.. or..honour killings of 'naughty' females who go against the fathers wish...or.. 'multiple wives' and some them might even be children..and EVEN pre-pubesecent children.

So, I have NO problem discriminating against such values and people who hold them.. so YES.. it IS discriminatory and jolly rightly and wisely so.

Garpet.. forget the 'moral outrage' approach.. trust me Pale is quite robust and so am I. This forum is not for the namby pamby nor the faint hearted. The only thing you may be assured of..is you wont find profanity here.

But if ur looking for Political Correctness.. not from me that's for sure.
Oh..Frank... one more thing.. you should also forget the 'hypocrite' approach.. wasting time mate.. I know the reasons for my views and they are very responsible.. nothing hypocritical about it at all.

HAVING said all that......

I've been waiting for Tampa 07..and to be honest..I think this is it.
(The 'No more Africans' thing)..
Well..it seems that Pauline Hanson is again being the tail which wags the dog..and the dog is the Coalition ..again. But clearly, the Coalition is smelling votes in it... and trying again to play 'catch-up' politics. (to Pauline)

Sadly..the REAL issue is being clouded here..and I don't know how much is the Media beat up and how much is actual Coalition policy.

LABOR is with them on the current issue..but it is not just 'africans' because they are black nor that they are 'AFricans'...its about REGIONAL QUOTA'S and this is a good thing.

I have been harping for ages about NOT ALLOWING any one ethnic or religious group to come here in large numbers (Unless compatable) and the only way to achieve this is to have quotas based on.. among other things. Race.. Country.. Religion.. etc.
To do this..does not mean you regard any one as 'inferior' it just means you have actually read a few history books and know the wisest course in the long run.

The HOWLS going up from various ethnic leaders..shows their true colors.. "We want OUR group to have a better deal"...
Well.. sorry.. this country will be managed according to 'our' agenda..not yours ...

David,

I try to make my posts 'restrained and balanced', sticking to evidence-based facts and rationally-argued opinions.

Your position is understandable but selfish - what you call the 'most suitable' refugees are those most like you. As a Christian I thought you might see that those in the greatest need might have a desrving case.

The tired examples you give of unwelcome 'cultural' practices are the usual Aunt Sallys. You well know that they are illegal in Australia and there are no attempts to allow them to become legal.

What I've learned about hypocrits is that there are two types. Those who are conscious of their hypocrisy and those for whom it is an unconscious failing arising from ignorance, confusion and inability to be intellectually consistent.

For example, your finding your anticipated Tampa 07 - the ('No more Africans' thing - your rationalsing of racial discrimination as REGIONAL QUOTA'S is bizarre. You say you've 'been harping for ages about NOT ALLOWING any one ethnic or religious group to come here in large numbers (Unless compatable) and the only way to achieve this is to have quotas based on.. among other things Race.. Country.. Religion.. etc'. So are we discriminating on the grounds of race or not?

Furthermore, on what you call 'large numbers', here are the facts. The 'Top Ten' figures for Offshore refugees in 2005-06 were: Sudan 3726; Iraq 2150; Afghanistan 1799; Burma/Myanmar 1118; Liberia 888; Burundi 740; Sierra Leone 460; Congo (DRC) 363; Eritrea 274; Iran 232; and Others 1008. The overall migrant intake was 131,600. So what's your definition of 'large numbers'?

In 2005-2006 immigrants came from nearly 200 countries. Most were born in the UK and New Zealand (32.1%) followed by China (8.0%), India (8.6%) and the Philippines (3.9%). The 'large numbers' of 'Africans' was hardly a blip on the radar.

You explain the 'HOWLS going up from various ethnic leaders' about shutting the door on 'Africans' as mere self-interest. How do you explain the HOWLS going up from (white) Christian church leaders?

Regarding the desirability of restraining the numbers of refugees/immigrants with cultures and value-systems significantly at variance with Australia's (which I won't dismiss out of hand), why is regional quotas the way to address this? There is just as much variation in cultural and religious beliefs among, say, residents of Baghdad than there is among residents of East African nations. If the purpose is truly to prevent integration issues, then the decision to accept or reject refugess should be made on the basis of an informed decision that takes each individual's background into account, not on the basis of what continent they happen to live on. Anything else *is* racism or at the very least "regionism", no matter which way you frame it.

However, before even getting to this stage, you need to at least make a case that there are significant integration issues that can't feasibly addressed in a more humane manner, which I am certainly yet to be convinced on.