benq just as God botherers say let God fix it you take it that anyone concerned with the problem is anti boat people there for wrong.
Conservatives now watch the ALP too proved votes matter, more votes can be lost in letting your boat people in than stopping them.
However the problem is huge and boat people nothing in respect of what may happen.
Do you think mass refuges ,millions, is unlikely to ever take place?
Do you think ANY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD could house a million refuges in say a year?
Would intervention on humanitarian grounds in Zimbabwe be better than doing nothing?
Are you happy with the grub running Afghanistan and stealing American dollars while doing nothing for his people?
And if the UN had any reason to exist, any at all, it should intervene in every such country to make a better life for those who need a home.

If?
If?
If?
If?
If?

Cripes! Must be some contagion – I’m glad I had my flu shots.

IF... only we could equalize everyone and everything, there wouldn’t be any more “refugees”.
Since, there wouldn’t be any osmotic impetus for anyone to move from move from lesser to greater, ‘cause we’d all be lesser.
(at last, you’ve found something that you and CJ Morgan...and Kim il jung can agree on!)

“ some people get in a fluff about "boat" people, but never even think about "plane" people.”
Yes, SOME people do, but MOST people are concern about BOTH.

“ There is NO "quick fix" --- AGREED

“ In the meantime, DON'T punish the victims –AGREED again , EXCEPT, the real victims here are Australian defense force personnel who have to rescue such schemers, often at great risk to their own lives, and the Australian tax payer who has to fund their upkeep.

PS: I wonder if those illegals involved in blowing up SIEV 36 will ever face justice –betya it’ll all be swept under the carpet and forgotten!

Dear Benq

you say:

//the problem is NOT refugees. The problem is the conditions that refugees escape from.//

Actually, I don't think the heart of peoples annoyance over 'boat people' is that they are fleeing from awful conditions. The root of our anger is that they come through a number of countries first.. just to get 'here'.

This raises the issue of "country shopper/genuine refugee"

A close inspection of the UN convention will reveal that it provides only for the nearest place of safety and has zero about 'economic betterment'

If these people have the financial resources to pay people smugglers.. then, they have the resources to buy a plane ticket.

If...they don't have documents which would enable them to get a plane ticket..then the first port of call is the nearest high commission or embassy.

But even this is stretching the convention to breaking point... because it comes back to nearest.

Then there is the issue of disqualification due to behavior which the convention deems disallows them. This includes violence and criminality. We've seen those behaviors already, and I'm hoping names were taken so they can be immediately deported without recource to any legal process whatsover.. as they are not now entitled to it.

The following website adds another perspective
to the topic:

http://www.australiansagainstracism.org/code/resources06.html

cont'd ...

The following websites may also be of interest:

http://www.safecom.org.au/myths.htm

and

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2001/s417232.htm

Dear foxy.. if you post material like that.. please expect it to be criticized or at least for more relevant information than the type peddled by "migration agents" and left wing lawyers.

According to the convention Article 1.C

http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html

(5) He can no longer, because the circumstances in connexion with which he has been recognized as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of the country of his nationality;

Now 'that' is where our system breaks down. Even when wars are over (Sri Lanka) the subjective opinion of the applicant is believed more than the reality on the ground.

In our situation.. the is an 'industry' which believes by default that the only person worth listening to and believing is the person applying. Such a situation is fraught with suspect motives and potential for abuse.

Article 2
General obligations

Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

Sooo...... riots and ethnic fighting in detention camps are ok ?

Article 31
refugees unlawfully in the country of refugee
1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming DIRECTLY from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Please note very carefully.

a) The word "DIRECTLY"
b) The word "ILLEGAL"

Article 32
Expulsion
1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

Please note the words

a) National Security ('our' assesment..not the applicants)
b) Public Order. i.e..riotous behavior, fights, piracy

Seems to me Foxy that the Convention is our the side of the genuine refugee only and 'not' on the side of the country shopper or rioter.