Bazz

<< 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. >>

I doubt anyone here is arguing to 'let them all in'. Last year we took in around 6000 refugees. We can easily afford to take in four or five times that number. That's nowhere near letting them all in, but it would get us closer to shouldering our fair share.

<< It has become increasingly firm that peak oil occurred in July 2008. >>

I understand the peak oil argument and agree with it entirely. It's peak oil that's driving much of the displacement of people within developing countries. The reason Iraq and Afghanistan have become so unsafe to live in is largely down to the West's desperation to shore up oil supplies. The West has a long and sorry history of exploiting poorer nations. It's continuing unabated under the bullying mantra of 'free' trade, which is stripping poorer governments of their rights to foster local industry and provide sustainable livelihoods for their people.

<< 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. >>

I totally agree. Skilled migration, which BTW has people continuously jumping the 'queue' - but nobody seems to worry about that unfairness, needs to be wound back to near zero levels. The Baby Bonus and all such encouragement to reproduce should be abolished and real measures taken to conserve our land and water. I understand sustainability issues but, like the Greens who were arguing their importance long before anyone else in Australia, I do consider it possible to simultaneously satisfy both environmental and humanitarian concerns.

Smithy456: "Congrats for falsely implying that others here have called her and others "nasty racists" on this thread."

That is an accurate observation, but it misses the bigger picture. The anti asylum brigade here has tried to daemonise the asylum seekers. For example:

Yabby: "This lot of 78 are clearly taking us for the suckers that we are."

Bazz: "They then claim to be an asylum seeker in fear of their life ? Really ?"

Belly: "The illegals that buy and bribe their way here and then gate crash ..."

If history is any guide, these statements are just rubbish. The vast majority boat people who arrived in the Howard era were found to be resourceful people running for their lives just as you or I would in the same situation. We know this because Howard's administration gave most of them asylum.

I know it makes it so much easier to send there people back to their rat holes if you imagine them out to be no better than rats - but personally I think that is the cowards way out. If you can't afford feed for the horse and decide to send it to the knackers, at least have the good grace to refrain from blaming the horse.

CJ Morgan: "The Opposition's policy on asylum seekers is simply to blow the dog-whistle as loudly and often as possible"

Yeah, they are doing that. And at the same time they are demanding we treat the asylum seekers more humanely. TZ52HX got it right when he started this thead - they don't have a consistent position. But then unlike the government they don't have to. Unlike TZ52HX I don't see a problem with it, and besides I think staking out a firm position at this stage would be bad politics.

Yabby, I used to enjoy reading your posts in the early days. But as CJ's example shows they are now more often than not just unsubstantiated hearsay served up to justify your favoured idealogical position. You could, and in fact did, do much better.

Bronwyn

Contrary to what you might believe, Australian women are already facing considerable disincentives to have children and that is why they delay fertility right up until ages where the risks of failing to conceive or experiencing high health risks for themselves and their progeny are very real. But don't doubt my word just go to the many government reports saying just that.

The fertility of Australian women is well below what is necessary to maintain its own population and has been so for many years, which is why government was finally concerned enough to offer a weak incentive (while continuing to flood the country with migrants).

Maintaining record immigration numbers year in year out is the problem and that is the policy that should be questioned. Australian women are at fault for un sustainable population numbers? You are kidding aren't you?

TZ52HX

The quota of refugees is set at 13000. Whilst not absolutely set in stone, it does include those that come in via boats and air, and while it may go to say 13100, it is certainly not going to 14000. So those that jump the queue certainly displace someone that apply through the proper channels.

As there are no published lists of visa approvals or rejections for any reason, your requirement of proof is infantile. I call on you to show by any means that what I have said is incorrect. I have looked and cannot find any.

There have been about the same No of boat people per week recently as there have been per year in 2007, compared to a world wide refugee increase of 12%. Given that most of the asylum seekers were actually resident in Indonesia in 2007 your bleating that the increase in boats has nothing to do with the relaxation of the regulations looks a little feeble.

Again I call on you to provide more than rhetoric and capital letters.

Many people drown going to US for money also. Money is toxic drug, even more addictive than sugar. Shame to see people drown for love of money. We should ensure the world's wealth is spread around more, notice many countries embarrased because their people come here for money.

maybe we should have a global minimum wage of $15.00. Initially for multi-nationals then flow through all communities when the benefits starts to take hold.