*Sheridan may well make some valid points in his article*

Well that was the point of linking it, the problems in Europe,
the acceptance by Blair and others that things arn't working.
The UN Convention needs updating, that is the issue.
But nitpick about other things if you like.

*I think any changes should be measured against how they would have impacted on the Jews of Europe after WWII*

Hitler did in fact gas 6 million Jews. Meantime millions of Hazaras
and Tamils live in their respective countries. Just because one
section of a country might not be safe, does not mean that all of
it is.

Its not my job to rewrite and Convention and it should not be.
What I am highlighting is that its not happening due to our bleeding
hearts like yourself, which is the issue here.

No wonder there is so much outrage in the general Australian
community about this. Most thinking people are well aware of
the rorts going on, from the burning of documents onwards.
Like me, they hate being taken for a sucker, which as a nation
are being seen as.

I have not got very good news for my fellow posters.
I heard our minister announce [sorry ducked out to turn Habib of]
He was cracking down on those protesters who commit any crime.
Even using temporary visas.
Well maybe.
Until it is proven other wise my government is hearing the csteels of this country ,not the Belly's/latched on ALP.
JUST AS IN NSW IT MAY BACK FIRE.
I know some issues are not being heard.
International laws make it hard to return some who destroy papers.
Some country's will not have them back.
Some LIKE IRAN would kill them.
So it is not just putting them on a boat, the 16 million refugees world wide will be greatly increased in the next ten years,our standard of living will drop, we now are reforming welfare yet some who have come here will always ,forever be on welfare.
Csteel has the skills Labor has the wish to be loved by her kind, but how many will Be sent home after these riots, how many criminals are still here.
I doubt we heard a plan today to just listen to AUSTRALIANS
We have the power to dump UN rules, demand no boat people but greatly increase refugee in takes from people who do not use criminals to come here.

Folks:
We have heard from many a learned individual
that Australia can support a gross population
of 17 million people. At the present time we are
carrying far in excess of 21 million people!

We are already suffering from gross fiscal
imbalance. We now have a "monstrous"
Budget deficit that is already going to cost
each member of our society dearly, as the
manipulators and financial wizards try to
"eventually" balance the books.

Regardless of what UN Conventions have been
signed in the past, by persons purportedly
representing the peoples of Australia, we can
no longer afford the luxury espoused by the
bleeding heart club by having these Asylum
Seekers forced upon us!

These uninvited opportunists are not only
getting a foot in the door, but are kicking
the door down in our faces in their violent
efforts to compel us to accept them. If they
love the use of violence to get the message
across, then why aren`t they joining the fight
in their own countries to obtain change in
their system!

Anyone old enough to remember what Enoch Powell
in England stated about the projected future of
Britain under the then influx of "foreigners",
must now see that he was right and Britain is now
under threat from Asylum Seekers, Refugees and
Illegal Immigrants, with the authorities unable
to prevent the tidal wave of humanity.....I do
NOT want to see a repeat of that in Australia!

The people should demand that the United Nations
Denunciation clause be invoked now,so that we can
put the brakes on before it is too late!

Dear King Hazza,

Yeh right. Whatever.

Dear Yabby,

Come on mate have a crack. The first thing you could do is read the thing.

http://www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf

The current definition of a refugee in Article 1 is “"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.."

The Organisation of African Unity in their regional treaty have used; “Any person compelled to leave his/her country owing to external aggression, occupation, foreign domination or events seriously disturbing public order in either part or the whole of his country of origin or nationality"

While the South American version is: "Persons who flee their countries because their lives, safety or freedom have been threatened by generalised violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public order."

Which would you prefer?

Although there is an implicit acceptance of responsibility for refugees from countries that a nation wages war with I would like to see it codified.

If a future 'Coalition of the Willing' wanted to overthrow a particular government then handling a proportionally higher number of the refugees that are produced as a result should be on their balance sheet when deciding if the exercise is worth it.

Dear Crackcup,

Raising the ghost of Enoch Powell? Hells bells.

Then again I suppose he did enlist as an Australian. Plus he was rather prescient in predicting "I see growing on the horizon the greater peril than Germany or Japan ever were... our terrible enemy, America....".

Dear Belly,

Skills for what

Cteele, I did in fact read it all some time ago. But what matters
more is how the courts interpret it.

I would not attempt to rewrite the tax code, for there are people
who know every loophole of it, and how things are legally
interpreted. That is exactly whey even lawyers specialise.

The same applies with the Geneva Convention. Once we have the
political will in place, the rest would fall into place, there
are enough experts in the field.

My own solution is far more simple. Take all refugees from refugee
camps, for they would not be there in the first place, if they
were not genuine.

Thought so Csteele- it's ok to avoid answering my points because they're too hard for you to understand.

What is sad is that you are incapable of even entertaining an idea of a country picking and choosing policy that suits itself independently of other policies.

Either that, or you actually can't give us a good reason why our stance is wrong without:
1- mentioning random irrelevant entities like the Liberals or USA (I think it's because you still believe that everyone who supports stricter refugee policies is some kind of neocon who, on principle, supports the USA, Israel, the Liberal Party, the Christian Church etc etc and somehow supporting these makes our immigration stance wrong too (by the way, I'm neutral towards Israel and I don't support the other three things at all- sorry)
2- Pretending these ARE relevant (ignoring that like plenty of other neutral Western countries, were we to not play a part- or even oppose either war- the refugees would still be trying to enter Australia anyway).