Bazz

<< The earth has a problem, leave the people where the problems exist and let them sort it out for themselves. >>

Yes, we could do that, but eventually the problems would intrude on us too. Besides, our comfortable lifestyle is dependent on the continued exploitation of resources and labour from developing nations. We need them, as much as they need us.

Research is now proving that the greater the disparity in a society's wealth, the more the whole of that society is beset by health and social problems. The same is true of global society. We will not be able to maintain our extravagant lifestyle, while countries around us suffer deep poverty and political unrest. We might be able to for a few years, but not for any length of time.

Besides, it's the West that's responsible for the climate change about to wreak havoc on so many undeserving nations around the world. We have a moral obligation to assist those who have already and will continue to suffer in order for us to live in comfort.

Quite apart from ethical considerations and purely in the name of pragmatic self-interest, we can't allow states around us to fail, because one way or the other they’ll take us down with them.

Yabby

<< I've seen nobody here suggest that we put up the barricades >>

Patrolling our borders, turning back boats, excising large sections of our coastline and mandatorily detaining all boat arrivals in offshore detention, all of which you advocate, are - figuratively speaking - ‘putting up the barricades’.

<< Look at the figures difference between UNHCR and Canberra, when it comes to judging asylum claims. It is huge and they both can't be right. >>

Time to put up on this one, Yabby. Let’s see some sources.

Bronwyn,
Re---“ But I've read credible accounts from neutral observers who've had long associations with Sri Lanka and who have a good understanding of the current situation.”
Talking of "show us your sources" how about you show us your sources?

I have been searching high and low on the internet for “NeutralHQ.com.au” with no result.

Re---“I'm sure if I was reading regular accounts of the Singhales being rounded up and killed, I'd have sympathy for their plight too, but at the moment that is clearly not the case”
You have sympathy with the Tamils because you’ve been “reading regular accounts” of their plight.So, perhaps it has more to do with your selection of reading material.—than the state of affairs in Sril Lanka ? How might your demeanour change if you started reading Steven King ?

Smithy 456,
Bronwyn has as much “balance” as the leaning tower of pizza –too many toppings, I suspect.

Yabby: << CJ accused me of all sorts of things over the I-pod story >>

No I didn't - I just asked you for a source for it. Thanks for finally providing one. And please don't try and claim that you haven't been claiming that asylum seekers are really economic immigrants in disguise - that was the point of your iPod claim, after all.

Now how about telling us how you think that we should go about "shutting down" the "people smugglers"?

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

You obviously missed the loving post by TZ52HX thinly suggesting my post implied racism? Or do you have a problem reading between the lines?
I brought up what a few others are only thinly disguising in their posts. See rstuart's post for examples if you don't believe me.

I really don't care what country they come from, all asylum seekers should apply through the united nations or the correct channels so that it is a level playing field where our Government can decide which refugees should come first as a matter of priority.

It should not be determined by who gets here first by rickety boat.
There are plenty of really desperate people in African countries who don't have the luxury of being close enough to Australia to come here by boat.

Is anyone saying that people living further away than are able to come here by boat should be less deserving of our sanctuary than those living in closer countries

*No I didn't - I just asked you for a source for it*

You accused me of dishonesty. I might be blunt, I might not be
PC, I might have a warped sense of humour, but I'm not dishonest.
As I said, the story was true. Nope, I don't keep links for
everything.

*Now how about telling us how you think that we should go about "shutting down" the "people smugglers"?*

Simple, refuse to take any asylum seekers by boat, take them
all from refugee camps. In cooperation with the UNHCR, establish
a refugee camp in the region, where there is a demand for one.
Australia, in combination with Japan and other wealthier countries,
to finance it.

*don't try and claim that you haven't been claiming that asylum seekers are really economic immigrants in disguise*

CJ, I have always claimed the same thing. Some are and some are
not. It is virtually impossible to prove which is which. OTOH
those people coming from refugee camps, are hardly likely to be
rich economic migrants, hoping and waiting in a refugee camp.

Bronwyn, the discrepancy in figures between Canberra dnd the UNHCR,
was widely debated in the press, last time this issue blew up,
in the Howard years. No, I never kept a link, in case some years
later, some ditzy dreamer might want it.

The barricades are hardly up, if we are accepting 13000 refugees
a year. Australians in the majority, simply want an orderly
system, not a frigging free for all based on corruption.

Yabby: << Simple, refuse to take any asylum seekers by boat, take them all from refugee camps. >>

Do you mean that Australia should withdraw from the 1951 Convention, then?

<< In cooperation with the UNHCR, establish a refugee camp in the region, where there is a demand for one. >>

Do you mean like the existing ones in Indonesia where asylum seekers reportedly languish for 5 years and are subject to abuse by the guards?

<< I have always claimed the same thing. Some are and some are
not. >>

It seems to me that you focus exclusively on those you allege are economic immigrants. In fact, I can't recall you ever acknowledging that the vast majority of 'boat people' are found to be bona fide refugees - as opposed to economic immigrants.

Little wonder that I think you're dishonest.