Ludwig asked:
"How can we accommodate refugees without opening the floodgates?"

Master replies:
"Floodgates" is a meaningless, emotive description based on your PHILOSOPHY. The solution to any worldwide refugee situation is achieved by a coordinated effort by ALL countries (not just 1st world countries) to share the load. This means, in times of crisis, ALL countries will be accepting large amounts of refugees. All this requires cooperation and organisation between all countries. This will not happen currently, because there's too many people like Ludwig who reject the basic compassion and will required. In my opinion, it WILL happen one day. When? I don't know. Maybe when the world grows up and understands that it's better not to have an "us vs them" world, but instead an "us AND them" world. But currently, fear and paranoia rules. And in Ludwig's case, his philosophy rules.

Ludwig asked, "How do we regulate this (the arrival of refugees) without shutting it down or strongly disincentivise it?"

Master replies:
See my reply to your question above.

Ludwig asked, "How do we strongly discourage this movement without tying up those involved in detention centres?"

Master replies:
See my reply to your question above.

Ludwig asked, "How do we treat them even a little more humanely without being seen as a soft touch target country?"

Master replies:
See my reply to your question above.

Ludwig asked, "What would be the point of striving to allow a very small number to come here via this route?"

Master replies:
It's called caring about your fellow human beings. Having a "heart". Acting honourably. Not having your brain ruled by Meanism.

Ludwig asked, "Why wouldn't we comprehensively close the proverbial gate instead?"

Master replies:
Because this country has a humanitarian programme and accepts at least "some" refugees. Our country, like ALL countries, needs to accept many more. Why? Because the world needs to help displaced people. It's in the world's best interests to do so. Every country's best interests. Australia's best interests. And yes Ludwig - - - -

EVEN "YOUR" BEST INTERESTS. Although you don't realise it, or understand it

*The solution to any worldwide refugee situation is achieved by a coordinated effort by ALL countries (not just 1st world countries) to share the load.*

Ho ho ho, you dreamer you. All countries can't agree on anything,
as everyone backs self interest. You still don't understand the
laws of nature.

* Although you don't realise it, or understand it*

Nope Mister, its your flawed philosophy that is the problem here,
for you don't understand basic Darwinian evolution theory.

As Darwin noted, far more of any species will created, then can
ever survive, for in the end, they will run out of resources.

What you are promoting is that people can live with impunity.
Produce as many kids as they want, somebody else will feed them,
wreck their environment, then just move elsewhere, somebody will
make space. Its the tragedy of the commons which will eventually
sink humanity, unless people are responsible for their actions.

In your opinion, they are clearly not.

The Age newspaper had an interesting article
last Saturday (July 4th, 2009, p. 15) written
by Tom Allard in Kuala Lumpur.
"Malaysia's traffickers prey on refugees."

The UNHCR deputy representative in Malaysia,
Henrik Nordentoft tells us in that article
that there are "great difficulties" for asylum
seekers in Malaysia and that the boats intercepted
recently along the route between Malaysia,
Indonesia, and Australia are "probably the tip
of the iceberg."

"You realise that there is desperation," Mr
Nordentoft says.

Allard tells us that Mr Nordentoft points to
the global dimensions of the problem.
"While asylum claims rose 28 per cent last year
and there were 42 million displaced people and
more than 16 million officially recognised asylum
seekers. Only 67,000 people were resettled.

With such a large refugee population, when you see
the resettlement numbers, you can see it's a
challenge to find solutions."

I agree with Master and CJ when they both
make a case for asylum seekers. People who have
been forced to flee their countries because of
war, famine and persecution need our help.
And coming from an ancestry of Displaced People,
I can identify with the plight of refugees. As I
understand it,
Ludwig completely agrees with our commitment to humanitarian
treaties. And, from what I understand, all
Ludwig is suggesting is that we restrict the
numbers of ordinary immigrants - so that we can take
in more refugees. Perhaps that is something that
needs to be considered - as far as sustainability is
concerned.

Well at least Ludwig's not a totally lost cause, unlike our Yabby. But, Ludwig's suggestion of accepting 25,000 refugees while at the same time prohibiting migration makes no sense. We benefit from BOTH refugees AND migration. We take in refugees from a humanitarian point of view and we take migrants because they provide necessary skill bases that this country requires (plus other reasons). BOTH categories make GREAT citizens.

Ludwig "believes" Australia's ecology can't sustain any more people. That's utterly ludicrous of course. With SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (which we've traditionally neglected in the past, although improvements are slowly happening) this country, as indeed most countries, can support a GREAT MANY MORE people. If we continue to indefinitely employ past practices (which will NOT happen, out of necessity) then Ludwig is correct about sustainability - - - but that indefinite use of past bad practices will NOT happen: Ludwig seems to not understand that the country is "changing". ALL countries will be forced, out of necessity, to live a sustainable existence. Right in my neighbourhood in this vast outback of Australia, there's a massive wind farm happening, providing 800 jobs and HUGE energy generation. Just 10 years ago a wind farm would have been laughed at by the authorities here. Times change. Properly managed, Australia can support a greatly increased population, despite what the fear mongers and anti migration people "believe".

Yabby writes that countries can't agree on anything. Ok then Yabbs, I guess that's a good excuse for giving up, putting it in the too hard basket and to show "zero compassion" for displaced persons. Sounds like you're very much a part of the "me, me, me" generations.

Ol' Yabbs wrote, "what you are promoting is that people can produce as many kids as they want and wreck the environment"

Master replies: Ok, where did I write "people can produce as many kids as they want" and where did I write that I promote the wrecking of the environment? Yabbs, if you want to be taken seriously you'll have to do rather better than that piece of junk writing"

*Yabby writes that countries can't agree on anything. Ok then Yabbs, I guess that's a good excuse for giving up, putting it in the too hard basket and to show "zero compassion" for displaced persons.*

Not at all Mister, its about being a realist and not a friggin
dreamer. Fact is the global population has gone from 1 billion
to 6 billion, heading for 9 billion, on the back of cheap oil and
plentiful oil. Its been highly unsustainable. Just look at the
global fishing situation to see how good people are at agreeing
on things.

I have stated before that its up to all Australians to put a figure
on how many refugees a year to take, but its hardly going to make
a difference. With global population increasing at 20 million
every 90 days, even if we take 20 million, thats only 90 days
worth of human breeding.

Given that Australia right now can't manage to live with 20
million sustainably, before you rush in more people, get the first
part right.

*Ok, where did I write "people can produce as many kids as they want" and where did I write that I promote the wrecking of the environment?*

Its nature old fella. You take them, they will breed them around
the world, from Afghanistan, to Iraq to third world Africa. Look
at their birth rates. And where people go, they wreck the
environment. That is the reality of our species.

Ludwig: << Onshore refugee arrivals are only distantly related to population growth and sustainability >>

So what's your real beef then? I don't agree that 'border security' is a virtue in and of itself - indeed, I think that the only justification for the maintenance of borders in an increasingly globalised world is to protect ecosystems and biosecurity.

I'm aware that my position is contradictory - but that, after all, is the nature of sustainable human development on a planet with finite resources. Ultimately, we humans have to stop breeding like rabbits globally and learn to live sustainably within our environment, and it seem to me that adopting a 'Fortress Australia' approach can only stave off the crunch temporarily at best, and indeed invite conflict at worst.

This may well mean that our standard of living becomes more modest - at least in material terms - in wealthy countries like Australia, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Of course there are some who selfishly demand that they should have plasma TVs and holiday houses while millions around the planet scratch for a living, but that position is ultimately morally and economically untenable.

I disagree with Master about the human carrying capacity of Australia's environment - I don't agree that it's infinite. Indeed, under our current profligate rates of production and consumption we're probably exceeding it if we are to be sustainable. However, if our individual consumption levels were to return to the far more modest standards of only 50 years ago then perhaps we could sustain considerably more people.

Certainly, we should stop encouraging economic immigrants and invest much more in providing those who are forced to seek refuge here (not to mention those who are here already or are yet to be born) with the kinds of skills that we need if we are to create a sustainable economy.