RStuart,
I didn’t notice your little quip camouflaged amongst the bluster:
“ What would you (SM/Yabby/Banjo/Horus) suggest… These are real asylum seekers. While we are signatories to
the UNHCR, we will end up taking them in because no one else wants them. While that is so they will continue to come, because
anybody being persecuted in their own country who has 1/2 a brain will take advantage of it”

What an impeccable piece of reasoning, they are ‘real’ because RStuart said so.
It’s only bettered by the second point , we better take them in because no one else will!
(I bet you don’t employ that principle in your personal dealings with people day-to-day!)
If that’s the template we are going to apply, start adding six zeros to any projections/budgeting re : population levels, green-house-gas levels, housing availability & cost ,infrastructure costs.

Please disabuse yourself of the Western middle class delusion that “the ones prepared to sacrifice home, family … are also the ones from countries in the throws of a civil war”.If you have any overseas experience you should know that people don’t need to face persecution/conflict to be dreaming of emigration to a Western country. And boats ( & airport arrivals) are just some of the avenues being exploited, you might recall the corruption & feeding-frenzy around studying-for-residency, or marriage-for-residency, or transfer-of-monies-for-residency capers!

For those on the subcontinent the apocalyptic narrative being peddled by refugee advocates ( & soon no doubt to be milked for all its worth by the George Negus’s of the media world, as soon as they get their snout through the door )– provides the best pretext/opportunity to get easy access to the West-- that any Sri Lanka ( whether Tamil or Singhalese , AND any Indian nationals who wants to tag along) will have in decades.

It’s about marketing—and human nature : If it’s rewarding to be an engineer you will have hundreds, if it’s rewarding to be a fleeing Tamil everyone will be one

Bronwyn,
“I'm not making excuses. I made a mistake. Big deal..”

You make a lot of ‘mistakes” but you do have one redeeming quality —you tell some good funnies—like this for example:
“[but] I've made post after post here of substantive on-topic debate”
“SUBSTANTIVE”?

In summary all your arguments amount to this:
The Singahlees are bad bad–tell lies
Howard is bad bad – mean hearted
Rudd is bad –confused policies
The refugees are – good good good –innocent lambs
Any one who differs is — bad bad –xenophobes & racists

Yabby wrote the following, " Everyone knows that the present system is being rorted. I've had so called refugees from Afghanistan, admit that to me, when I've asked them a few questions".

I don't believe you've spoken to even ONE "so called refugee from Afghanistan" Yabby, at any stage in your life. I think you've just made that up Yabby. You've implied that the people you claim to have spoken with are frauds.

Have you "really" spoken to them Yabby or am I wrong Yabby?

Well, if I am wrong Yabby, PUBLISH THEIR NAMES HERE. NOW.

THEN WE'LL REPORT THEM DIRECTLY TO THE AUTHORITIES.

If they are like you say they are, just "so called" refugees, then you are 100% safe from any legal action regarding the publishing of their identities.

But you won't do this will you Yabby.

Why?

Because the refugee frauds from Afghanistan you claim to have spoken with ............... DON'T EXIST!

Not so TZ, I might be blunt, I might not be PC, but I tell it like
it is. Its exactly for these reasons that I formed my opinion.

Before I sold my last business, I used to travel to the airport
2-3 times a week, on the way picking up various industrial supplies
at various companies. A number people who had entered the country
as refugees, worked as storemen, forklifts drivers etc. 911 was
a hot topic at the time, so were the Taliban, so were Afghans fleeing
Afghanistan. It always lead to interesting debates!

But as no matter what I say will convince you, I'll rub the post
from Franklin under your nose once again, which Horus has already
done, but I doubt that you have read:

*Paul Sheehan wrote an informative book entitled “The Electronic Whorehouse” which detailed bias in the media on various issues. In a chapter on the breathtaking bias of the ABC on the asylum seeker issue he gave the interesting statistic that in Indonesia in 2001 the UNHCR rejected 80% of asylum seekers as not being in need of protection, rising to 95% in the cases of Iranians applying for unhcr protection. This contrasts markedly with the high acceptance rate for those asylum seekers arriving in Australia’s migration zone. The reality was that the usual practice for almost all asylum seekers was to destroy their identity papers and travel documents, which made the determination of their identities and verification of their stories of persecution and return to their countries of residence or origin a very time consuming, difficult and costly task. Those found not to be in need of protection withheld all cooperation for return to their countries of residence and filed appeal after appeal. In the end the government took the soft option and most were granted protection.*

The rest of the post is here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9648#154510

Clearly we are a soft touch, open to rorting and it happens
constantly, no matter how much you bleat.

Horus: "I didn’t notice your little quip camouflaged amongst the bluster"

What can I say Horus? Given how much you are pretending to miss, I am surprised you bothered to pick it out.

Horus: "they are ‘real’ because RStuart said so"

I am honoured you think so Horus. But really, rather than just taking my word for it you would be better off looking at the reasons I and others have given for thinking they are real and deciding on that basis. I realise that is difficult to do when you are pretending they don't appear on the screen before you, but it makes for a much more interesting debate if we discuss the real world, as opposed to your fantasies.

Horus: "we better take them in because no one else will!"

You are confused. You evidently think we have a choice. We made our choice when we signed the UNHCR. Now we are obligated provide a safe haven for refugees that arrive on our soil. Some (Howard, and most recently Ken Parish yesterday on OLO) have suggested we can just temporarily take them in until another country volunteers to take them off our hands. My point was they are deluding themselves, because as I said "no one else will". Actually, I think Howard just pretended he thought that - a debating technique you will no doubt recognise.

Yabby: "Paul Sheehan wrote an informative book..."

Yes, that is one data point Yabby. Here is another: most of the refugees on the Viking King were approved by the UNHCR in Indonesia. http://www.theage.com.au/world/ready-to-risk-lives-and-life-savings-20091101-hrm1.html Accordingly, you support their entry into Australia? Do let us know.

As for your conversation with your Afgan mate, I trust you realise while it was evidently a definitive moment for you, given the tone of the debate here the rest of us here find it about as convincing as a love note from a randy black widow. It is a sad comment on some OLO inhabitants. Sad or otherwise, verifiable facts with citations are the only thing that carry any weight. Well that and snarky comments, I guess.

rtuart, The issue with the Viking is that they were rescued and take to the appropriate port but then demanded to be taken to Australia. There are some on Christmas Island climbing flag poles or some such endeavour because they want to go to New Zealand. It is absurd we start a ocean line cruise service. It cannot happen, even with the best intention that is just silly. Though silly leaving them for weeks as well, it should have been CI or forced removal right from the start.

Just heard the news that Alex, the famous asylum seeker was deported from Canada in 2003 for anti-social behaviour, He has since started people smuggling operation based out of India. I am so sick of lies in every direction.