*Naive? Hardly. Idealistic possibly*

Nope Csteele, Naive it is. If people abuse the tax code, pay no
tax and jump through loopholes, taking advantage of the good nature
of our society, people want those loopholes closed and the situation
addressed. Its about what is fair and just. So that is what our
Govt does.

Yet for some reason this does not apply to the UN 1951 Convention.
None of you idealists are wanting it fairer, closing loopholes etc.

You just want us to blindly go along with what was signed 60 years ago,
but where circumstances have changed dramatically.

Sorry, but that is naive. People can hoodwink you in front of your
face and you don't even notice. Gullible might me another word
that suits. Wearing your heart on your sleeve is another.

Some of us realists, who live in the real world, have a problem
with that.

Jewely- you do realize I'm not a Christian? In fact, you could hardly call Australia a Christian society, considering that it has no Christian fundamentalists, a rapidly dwindling conservative Christian minority (with sadly too much input into our society) and an overwhelmingly secular Christian minority not much larger than an Atheist minority. If a Christian tried to immigrate showing only fundamentalist or fanatical anti-secular viewpoints I would want that person deported also- refugee or not.

Csteele- dodged my point again to continue your derail? that's too bad.
The Jewish/Wahabi analogy does not make me 'uncomfortable'- it is completely false and demonstrates you did not even read my post, but simply assumed it would be about something you WANTED it to be.
The funny part is I actually left out any political issues- everything I listed were domestic social problems experienced by political neutral countries that let Wahabis take up residence.
And to answer your question about the fire- YES, they should have been sent home.
Quite simple.
(Except of course, for someone who can't understand a world more complicated than "left wing stuff" and "right wing stuff"- things like judging individual situations without "left" and "right" is just too hard).

If a lone violent gang member were being chased by members of a rival violent gang, and he needed to hide in my house- and in his desperation started to get violent and smash my fence and set fire to my letterbox to get my attention- guess what? I sure as hell wouldn't let him in!
The fact that he would probably be killed by his pursuers is tempered by the fact that he himself is a danger to myself and others.
Violent people deserve each other, while non-violent people deserve better than have their lives put to risk by the likes of them- and when weighing up the rights of a violent person's safety from other violent people against the safety of a non-violent person from somebody like him- guess whose rights I'd pick?

Dear King Hazza,

Wahhabists?

Gave you the benefit of the doubt last time mate but I'm not feeling that way inclined now.

Is this a favoured debating trick of yours? Post in an ambiguous manner then when your opponent trips down one path you slap him around the head for showing a 'lack of understanding'. Then move the goal posts.

You talked about “prone to acts of pyromania” then qualified in your latest post;

“The funny part is I actually left out any political issues- everything I listed were domestic social problems experienced by political neutral countries that let Wahabis take up residence.”

Not having it. Do us all a favour and plain speak.

You then try to paint all asylum seekers as 'Wahhabists'. You know as well as I do you have no idea whether those who lit the fires at Villawood or are presently staging rooftop protests are Wahhabists or even Islamic fundamentalists of any ilk.

My analogy was between Jewish refugees, some of whom were Orthodox, and Muslim refugees some of whom may well hold more firmly to the tenets of Islam than others. It was perfectly legitimate.

Your 'gang member' analogy is a crock as well. If you were attempting to remove someone seeking sanctuary who was already in your house to face a probable death at the hands of a rival gang then and they then became remonstrative their actions would be judged sympathetically. In my society if you succeeded in removing them and they were killed I would hope you were charged with accessory to murder.

Dear Yabby,

Well perhaps you had better enlighten us on just how you think the Convention should be altered. What are the 'loopholes' you keep referring to?

Will they deny us our Victor Changs, our Sir Gustav Nossels, or a some of our Bonegilla residents like Les Murray and Dr Karl Kruszeniski, or some of our young Australian's of the year like Tan Le and Khoa Do?

Love you to spell them out.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/un-convention-misunderstood-and-its-not-working/story-e6frg6zo-1225889968841

Csteele, Sheridan makes some valid points in his article.

But there is much more then that. You only need to claim to fear
persecution under the Convention. The onus is on the authorities
to prove that you are lying. Given that information from the
third world is mostly unavailable, they can claim just about
anything.

I am Hazara, I fear Pashtuns. I am Tamil, they are after me.
Never mind that millions of Hazaras and Tamils live in their
respective countries. Find out from your mates what ticks
the Australian boxes and you have a visa!

At the moment you have thousands of Tunisians, fleeing to Italy.
As they are not locked up on arrival, they head for France. It will
take years and years for each case to be processed, the system is
overwhelmed. People are not silly, they know this, meantime they
can live in Europe with impunity and vanish within the EU.

When people are rejected, sometimes they are dragged kicking and
screaming onto chartered aircraft, at huge expense and with a great
deal of drama. Govts avoid all this by letting many stay, as in
Britain. Claimants know this. They know a sucker when they
see a sucker.

Litigation can take years and years, meaning all the while, they
cannot be rejected.

The 1951 Convention has become a great way for economic migrants
to enter the Western world and live the cushy lifestyle.

Our bleeding hearts are sadly too naive to see it for what it is.

Dear Yabby,

Sheridan may well make some valid points in his article but I found it hard to get past his first paragraph.

“ACCORDING to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, there are 16 million refugees in the world today. According to Julian Burnside, Malcolm Fraser and the other faux compassionate advocates of soft policies for illegal immigrants, any of those 16 million who get to Australia's waters should be automatically offered permanent residence in Australia, with immediate access to welfare and all the other benefits Australia offers.”

We are entitled to ask why in the one sentence he moves us from 'refugees' to 'illegal immigrants'? Talk about wearing ones agenda on ones sleeve. And why claim Burnside and Frazer of having fake compassion when Burnside at least has put Hazari Afghan Refugees up in his own home for many years?

He also seems to imply that immediate access to welfare etc is contingent on permanent residence. It is not. It is a requirement under Article 24 of the Convention.

I think any changes should be measured against how they would have impacted on the Jews of Europe after WWII and neither you nor Greg Sheridan has offered up any proposals that can be thus tested.

No Csteele there is no trickery, just you perceiving there is.

You say people are hostile to "these" refugees because of the same reasons White Australia was to non-white refugees.
I am telling you, people are only hostile to taking in fundamentalist Muslims and people from tribalistic societies for entirely different and more substantiated reasons;
YOU were the one tarring with the same brush, my dear. Remember?
So that's the first load of rubbish of yours out of the way.

Secondly- I have said countless times- if immigration went my way, we would simply screen all arrivals to see if they ARE religious fanatics, prone to violence, emotionally unstable or any other mental/emotional state that would make them a danger or cause problems to a local community- and if they ARE, they are sent back pronto; if not, they are placed in the community and have their claims processed here.
Thus both points you keep indulging in are rendered MOOT.

As these arrivals under arrest have been judged unworthy- and then went to prove moreso by resorting to rioting and burning- they qualify for a ticket back.

Which part don't you understand (this time)?

That sad part about you is that because YOU cannot separate issues, you assume nobody else can either.