@ Yuyutsu

<<Since you mentioned Israel, the Israelis are known for their success in cultivating arid soil (and marshes) and making the desert bloom. If people like this somehow make it, if their boats do not sink and they survive the outback conditions in areas that we don't use anyway and which you just described as "not worth having", then why should you mind?>>

Because, the most likely outcome would not be a mini replication of Israel (as scarey as that is to some!)
But as massive replication of The Horn Of Africa complete with overpopulation, crop failures, and its own version of Al-Shabaab.

And after a time, The Greens, Getup and rest of the Bleedin Heart industry would be decrying how immoral it was to confine this fledgling nation to the worst piece of land. And how we really owed them support. And the UN would intervene and Kevin 07 reborn would fly to Bali to sign a perpetual support agreement. And pretty soon Australia and the new states relationship would come to resemble that of the two birds in this vid:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS9fFD0UGmE&feature=related
(PS: Oh, in case you haven't worked it out. Australia is the one doing the feeding!)

RObert
I was once against TPVs however compared to the current debate they seem like the better option. While I am not into open-slather borders, which is unworkable, not to mention the infrastructure pressures, refugees make up the smallest part of Australia's intake of newcomers.

As for other comments:

What is the difference between boat people and plane people? The number of boat arrivals is miniscule by comparison.
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm#_Toc285178607

Increases in boat arrivals is mainly due to increased push factors like war, poverty and civil unrest.

Recent reports reveal that those who arrive by plane and who later apply for refugee status outnumber boat applicants by a factor of 30. Plane applicants are more likely to fail processing than boat applicants (excuse the vernacular).

Many appear to be confusing Australia's refugee programme with migration. There is a difference. There are enormous refugee populations in other parts of the world, where people are still seeking a 'home' or safe return to country of origin when conditions settle or return to normal.

http://www.hreoc.gov.au/racial_discrimination/face_facts_05/refugee.html

How many refugees hold 'us' in contempt. Is there a statistic? Some do for sure, so do many Australians hold contempt for each other as some comments on OLO reveal. Some of the cultural differences are difficult in some first generation settlements, but it is wholly up to the Australian Government and judiciary to adhere to the Rule of Law in regard to any practices which break the law.

There is a real tendency to generalise about what refugees (or migrants) think based on the actions of a small minority. Why not take the cue from the vast majority of migrants/refugees who settle in Australia without a ripple.

Yuyutsu,
I am glad that you are gratefull and contribute to our society. We know we cannot save all the humanity of the world so we must be selective of immigrants. That selection is based on what the government sees as the employment prospects are for that person. Maybe it is not perfect but we try and we are generous with the family reunion. Personally I would like the number of immigrants greatly reduced.

As for boat arrivals, I refer to them as illegals simply because it is illegal to enter Australia without a valid visa and these people destroy their papers so as to con our officials and make it almost impossible to deport them, as their home countries will not accept those without positive identifacation. They are uninvited gate crashers who deliberately set out to deceive us and we pay enormously for this. No one likes to be deceived and is why I want them stopped.

The object of not giving them what they seek is to deter others from coming. We did have a detering programme in place but unfortunately this present government changed that and we now have a major problem. This was not by evil intent, but by stupid naivety and incompedence. Because the illegals now see our government as weak, it will take even tougher measures to stop them comming.

You may think we have land to spare but believe me it is harsh and we could not even keep them there unless we made it a giant fenced detention centre. Not to mention as to how would they live, get shelter and supplies and generate income. They would all have to be kept by us. So your concept is unworkable.

No, we must put deterants in place to stop them comming. That is the most cost effective and proven humane action to take.

pelican well put. The horrors of boat arrivals seem to be blown out of all proportion to the actual impacts.

I suspect that there is opportunity there for the politician who is willing to change tack and present some real alternatives to the current approach without creating the impression of open borders.

There must be better ways we can deal with this both for this country and for those who are genuinely escaping a crisis in their homeland.

Not much imagination or courage being shown by the current crop of so called leaders.

R0bert

R0bert,

"I'd not like to be a resident (or traveller) in a remote area and have a bunch of dispossessed people living rough in the bush nearby when it came to the point that they realised that I had some essentials that they didn't."

I can understand this, but would it be different if you replaced "people" with "animals"?

Just like with animals, you should do whatever you need to do to defend yourself and your family and ensure your safety.

But as SPQR noted, the actual problem is not directly with those people, treated for better or worse as animals, who in small numbers pose no threat, but rather with the GetUp brigade who believe that humans must not under any circumstances be treated as animals (including when they willingly choose to be so treated).

Animal numbers are usually contained by nature. The occasional boom, such as the cane toad's, can be treated accordingly - and ditto if/before the situation with human-animals comes close to that of the Horn of Africa.

"I don't quite know how you'd keep them out of the cities and town under that approach either. Once they've gotten someone's vehicle and some money what stops them from driving into the cities or towns?"

Primarily, a fence, same as dingos.
Now what do you do when despite this an animal reaches the city?
Well if it is dangerous or causes harm, then you put it down, but if it becomes someone's pet, which they keep on leash in their backyard and causes no sanitary, noise or smell problems, then why should you mind?

If someone wants to arrive in a human capacity and be part of Australian society, then of course they need to fill forms, pass tests, present documents, get a visa, etc. But if one [freely] chooses to arrive in the capacity of an animal, then there is nothing wrong or immoral in treating them as such.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Again, the problem is the GetUp brigade, the greens and the reds, who want to see everyone be a part of their society, by hook or by crook. Their twisted humanistic ideas deny humans their right to not participate in society (or in any particular society, especially theirs): participation should instead be an option based on mutual agreement. When one is not willing to participate in society, then as far as that society is concerned, they are animals and should be treated accordingly.

Now the crunch point - As every human is also an animal, the same right of choosing the status of animal, should be extended not only to illegal arrivals, but also to people legally in Australia.

But better than that, I would actually prefer a multi-tiered approach, where the level of participation in society is not binary where the only available choice is either to be a full/human member or an animal - while society is under no moral obligation to provide other options, I would like to see it accommodating the shades in between as well.

Banjo,

You are totally right regarding people who wish to arrive in the capacity of people. I suspect that the number of people who prefer to arrive in the capacity of an animal is quite small and most of them are likely to be genuinely desperate and not for economic reasons. Most of those will not survive the trip and harsh conditions anyway, so their threat to Australia is minimal.

"Not to mention as to how would they live, get shelter and supplies and generate income. They would all have to be kept by us. So your concept is unworkable."

Why should this be our problem whether they live or die, given that they never in the first place even asked us to care for them? We are under no obligation to feed all kangaroos and possums, so why those? Other than the GetUp brigade there is nothing compelling us to behave like SPQR's smaller bird.