Now how much more does it apply to the illegal immigrants .
drag them out to the ocean and sink them?I don't think so.

Shadow Minister & Foxy,
Your comments just gave me the idea of an international illegal migrants/refugee kind of court. If all people & all countries had to accept an international board's decision then no-one could either blame a country of discrimination nor could a country be blamed. We could have offices of international refugee distribution in every country, similar to embassies. It could possibly even leave the radical accusers of discrimination stumped. United nations land could be used for temporary housing of refugees. This might even give the UN some sense of usefulness.

Dear Individual,

I believe that the UN is the current
adminstrator that determines the placement
of refugees based on the numbers each individual
country is willing to accept.

Unfortunately there are no specific UN centres
and individual countries that end up with these
asylum seekers make some effort to provide
temporary facilities until the UN determines the
asylum seekers future.

That is my understanding based on our government's
explanations.

Perhaps TRUTHNOW78 may explain to us all what secularists have to do with skilled migration and "the number of kids". as in his/her comment

Far more important to you, or so it seems, is where the skilled migrants have come from with your emphasis on family size together with the stated 'lazy' characteristics of Australians. We need a more selective policy as to the suitability of migrants, not just for skills, but more importantly, for their ability to integrate into our society avoiding the ghetto mentality we can see in this country and even more noticeable, all over the world, now causing serious problems everywhere. There is the big error.
The Australian characteristics you detailed, if correct, will change when they realise they are losing all those wonderful ‘laid back’ activities they enjoy so much.
We have been fortunate over the past 50 years in selecting Europeans by the thousands. What a dismal country without the influence of Italians, British, Greeks and others where successful assimilation has been perfect.

The problem will occur in Australia if we continue to base our migration policies on skills alone rather than including acceptability to our way of life as a criteria of equal importance. Education has the ability to overcome shortages in skill levels in the short term if addressed seriously, but filling this country with people who will never assimilate because of views alien to our culture will compound our problems with every passing year.
There are many examples of this mistake in almost all countries in the world.
Any analysis of the migration problems of the world in 2010 would show quite clearly that all governments trying to overcome such problems would gladly turn back the clock to have been much more discriminating in their choice of skilled or non-skilled migrants rather than, through short term needs and convenience, sow the seeds for future problems that do not have a solution.
If we go down this track, that is selecting migrants for skills only, Australia will pay the price.
Fortunately, I will not be around to see it.

Foxy,

Christmas Island has gone from nearly empty to more than double design capacity in 6 months, with about 30 times the illegal boat arrivals under the pacific solution, and more than can be processed by existing personnel.

The term coping is wildly optimistic.

The only role of the UN is to comment on the refugee status. Given that their default position is to grant refugee status, and that most have no papers, (see how few get rejected) they mostly function as a rubber stamp.

So now it is quicker and cheaper to pay $15 000 for a place on a boat and wait for the bleeding hearts to relocate and house you, than trying to get in as a skilled migrant, and paying upto $50 000 for an education.

The overseas student study and visa scheme was a rort from the start.
It would be interesting to know how many just stuck a pin in the list
of courses.
I just read that they have had the identical problem in the UK and
they are cancelling many visas.

I just wonder how many millions do people think we can absorb ?
If the government decides 35 million is a good number, you can bet
that it will soar to 50 to 60 million.
We would have 100 ro 200 million arrive if we just did nothing.
It is time to crack down and say times up and lower the drawbridge.

I'm probably naive - but I thought that Australia
was under a legal obligation to take in a certain
agreed number of asylum seekers. These people have
to be assessed based on legitimate (or not) claims.
Economic refugees should have to apply through the normal
channels. Otherwise they shouldn't qualify for
acceptance.

Unfortunately, Australia is the closest and most
desirable and easiest to reach destination.
So, this problem is not going to go away -
and will be an ongoing issue - for generations to
come. There are those that want to escape persecution,
and there are those that want a better life.

The government has decided it's going to be
selective in the type of skilled migrants the
country needs. There's no point to bring in
workers in areas of specific speciality where there
is no work for them. They end up on welfare.
The government should take a strong stance and send
back to their countries of origin - at the claimant's
expense - all those that do not qualify for refugee
status - that would send a message hopefully to others
not to risk pursuing Australia as their ideal
destination.