Thank you Bronwyn for injecting some mature balance into this discussion. Thank you for remaining calm despite the crass baiting sent your way from people who choose to not debate logically. Thank you.

The Opposition's policy on asylm seekers is simply to blow the dog-whistle as loudly and often as possible in order to deflect attention from their woeful disarray and incompetence.

Let me express my appreciation to TZ52HX, RobP, Smithy456 and others who demonstrate that there are many of us who are immune to the Opposition dog-whistle - and of course to Bronwyn, whose participation in the discussion is a model of maturity and patience in the face of some quite puerile attempts at provocation.

Speaking of which, Yabby - you keep on saying the solution to the problem of asylum seekers arriving by boat is to simply "shut down" the organisers. How exactly would that be achieved, given that it's a worldwide phenomenon?

Here we are on the horns of a dilemma.
We would like to help all who are looking for asylum, or even just looking for a better life.
Yet suggesting a let them all in policy worries everyone.
Why ? Because we know that it is impractical. We may not put actual reasons why it is not possible,
but we know that it cannot be done.

Let me put a scenario to you.
It has become increasingly firm that peak oil occurred in July 2008.
Oil production is very unlikely to increase other than for short periods ever again.
Demand is increasing in China and India and will soon absorb the reduction in demand that has occurred in western countries.
The debt incurred by the US and European countries is such that that assistance to population shifts is very unlikely.
Depletion of energy from oil has already started and will put increasing strains on world economies as they try to adapt.

In Australia’s case we will face a 50% decline in oil availability before 2020.
Our government has adopted a policy of population increase to 35
million that is nothing short of madness in view of our current water
and soil conditions.
We should adopt a policy to reduce our population to a level that
can be maintained by the land.
Think of us as sheep, what is the carrying capability of the paddock ?

The earth has a problem, leave the people where the problems exist and let them sort it out for themselves.
If it is internal wars, let them fight it out, or argue it out.
If it is starvation, water supplies etc let them adapt and reduce
their populations until their land can support them.
Mass migration is nothing more than problem shifting.

For everyone we take in, they will be replaced by another wanting to
shift here.
It is no solution to move people, they have to solve their problems where they are.
If they do not sort out their problems, mother nature will do it for them and it won’t be pretty.

Banjo

<< Look at the 78 Tamils, they deliberately sabotarged their boat so they would get picked up and since then they have tried everthing they can to get what they want. >>

I haven't read anything about deliberate sabotage, but I may have missed it. Perhaps you could quote your source.

<< This exposes the lie that they were fleeing persecution and death on the boat. >>

No it doesn't at all. It seems these asylum seekers, or many of them anyway, have had their claims for asylum recognised by UNHCR four or five years ago. They're genuine refugees who were proven at the time to have fled in fear of persecution and would patently be in danger if they returned now. I don't blame them for refusing to go back to Indonesia. They've been warehoused there in hellhole conditions for many long years already. If they go back to waiting there, they know full well they'll never leave. Besides, there are plausible reports of them suffering beatings and brutality whilst detained in Indonesia.

Over a quarter of these asylum seekers have family in Australia. It makes sense for them to seek resettlement where they’ll receive family support.

Most in the Opposition, while critical of Rudd’s handling of the situation, stop well short of demonising the asylum seekers themselves. Even Rightwing unions, traditionally nationalistic in outlook, are speaking up in support of fair treatment for them. Your views, Banjo, place you squarely in the lunatic fringe.

Smithy and CJ

Thanks for the reassuring words. Yes, it can become tedious going over the same old arguments with the same old closed minds, but it’s always wonderfully reaffirming to see other voices of reason and compassion shining through the murky maze. :)

Yabby,

>>RobP, if you think about what I am suggesting, its far humane then
the present system, which creates alot of false hope, risks lives,
and is unfair, especially to the most deserving in camps, who don't
have a cent to bribe anyone.<<

Your whole argument is predicated on the idea that asylum seekers are really economic migrants in disguise. BTW, the people who are really promoting this idea are saying more about themselves than the people they're talking about. Anyway, what about those boat people that are truly trying to flee either persecution or squalor? Are you willing to admit that a proportion of them are genuine asylum seekers? Are you categorically saying that none of them are genuine?

>>I would have thought that if your life was genuinely at risk, you
would be happy to be alive!<<

Again, that presupposes the asylum seekers' life wasn't in danger or that he had already got the best possible outcome for himself. That's a pretty hard assessment to make from here. I'd broadly give you a 50:50 chance of being correct in an assessment you made of any particular asylum seeker. If you are a libertarian, you must concede that the people making the decision to chance their arm by boat are in the best position to do so?

* if we put up the barricades and turn our backs on our neighbours in need? We have to take our fair share of the region's refugees. Our current intake is not enough under the circumstances*

I've seen nobody here suggest that we put up the barricades, but
most Australians want an orderly intake, which does not include
boat races based on smuggling dodgy claimants.

As to our fare share, the number we take is open for debate. Clearly
we take far more then Japan and most other countries in our region.

If you spend some time in SE Asia, you will soon notice that
Australians are more commonly seen as "dumb suckers", then as
inhumane. Have you noticed how many asylum seekers head for
Singapore?

Even the limp left, given their claims of care about the environment,
will have to put a figure on how many poor and impoverished people
we in Australia should take, before the barricades go up, for even
you concede that an unlimited intake is not an option.

The 78 are indeed taking Australia for a sucker. They are trying
to jump the UNHCR queue, made longer by other boat people. News
reports mentioned holes drilled into their boat. They were in
Indonesian waters, mobile phones in hand, ringing the Australian
Maritime Authority (yup Sri Lankans on a leaky boat would of course
know which number in Australia to ring). Hey pronto, along comes
the Aussie boat, now they refuse to get off and play the political
pressure card, knowing full well that you compassionate hearts will
play it their way. Whoever thought up this one, deserves a prize
for ingenuity!

I'll comment on the rest, when I have more posts