"but would it be different if you replaced "people" with "animals"?"

There are very few animals on our shores that I think could best me if I'd taken basic precautions and avoided places where the odd's were well against me (I'd not swim in waters likely to contain croc's).

I can't think of any animals on our shores who could break into a locked home or camper and pose a credible threat to human residents, a single human is more than capable of that.

It's very different if we replace animals with humans but treat the human's like animals.

R0bert

Yuyutsu,
You are being contradictory. You first claim we treat animals better than humans and that we should allow any to come here that wants to.
Now you say we should restrict Illegal arrivals to a harsh area and just let them fend for themselves. Why should we care, you say!

That would certainly stop the boats coming but we are not like that. We do care about the welfare of other humans.

I do not know how long you have been here but you will notice we have a comprehensive social services system that assists people when needed. We may well detain illegals but they are well provided for with Air con, good food and medical attention. I understand they even get spending allowances, phone access and internet access. When they get permanent residence they get the same benefits all other immigrants get, the same as was available to you.

Prisoners in our jails also get good treatment.

I do not know the social standards of the society from which you came but what you advocate for treatment of illegals is simply not acceptable in Australia. The humane action is to deter them from coming.

Here we are arguing about how to let immigrants, legal & illegal into
the country at the same time we are arguing about how to divide the
water between feeding people and the environment !

It is obvious that we must reject all immigrants and start deporting
as many of those that have been here for a to be decided period of time.

We have obviously exceeded our carrying capacity or we would not be
having the argument about the Murray Darling River Basin.

End of argument ! Not possible to get around that.

Bazz
Sustainable populations can be managed via flexibility in immigration quotas but this is about refugees. Two different subjects. Remember what happened to the Jews when countries turned them away only to return to a certain death.

I am all for sustainability, our mainly arid contintent is already having difficulty with water management and much arable land being used for exports while at the same time importing food that can easily be grown locally. But I digress.

I am all for discouraging boat arrivals but there is too much furore over boat arrivals as 'illegals'. Seeking asylum or refuge is not illegal. It is visa overstayers who arrive by plane that are illegal.

If an applicant is not a genuine refugee they won't be approved.

It is a difficult area of policy, there is no way Australia and other countries could ever hope to take all refugees who are sitting in camps.

Maybe the key is to reduce the number of refugees by reducing the conditions that create these situations. How to? Difficult. This is one area where I think some intervention might be valid where there are legitimate human rights abuses rather than wars waged out of self interest. Even then, I hesitate because sometimes change is only possible if it comes from within, and there is always a chance one tyranny will simply replace the other.

First world countries also have to do some soul searching in how their own policies may add to the woes of the developing world.

There is no contradiction, Banjo - there is a choice and everyone should be able to choose between [at least] two tracks: the humane track and the animal track (in my last post I also briefly mentioned allowing in-betweens, but that's for another day).

If one chooses the humane track, then they are subject to the treatment you mentioned, including detention and possible deportation, but also social and medical services, phone and internet, food and air-conditioning, and the possibility of recognition as legitimate refugees. The fine details are under debate, some claim that Labor's way is better, some the Liberals', but the framework is the same: no society is obliged to accept new members it does not want.

What I am introducing here is different - the "animal" track, to which anyone is entitled by nature. Denying this track is an irrational and unfair discrimination against humans. Those who choose this track do not become (or remain) part of society and their lives are not protected, yet they should receive similar rights as the RSPCA guidelines: to not be tortured, to be treated well if taken as pets, not to be killed without a need, and if there is such a need, to be put down in the quickest and least painful way.

"That would certainly stop the boats coming but we are not like that. We do care about the welfare of other humans."

-But that's the whole problem. It is patronizing. It is assuming for others what their good is supposed to be instead of letting them decide for themselves. You may care for the welfare of their bodies, but that does not amount to caring for them and the welfare of their souls. Some prefer death over imprisonment.

Somehow, it seems that Australian-borns acquired an image of immigrants as people who want to suck their wealth and feed on their institutions and infrastructure. There may indeed be immigrants like this, but I was not one of those. No such thoughts have ever crossed my mind when I arrived. Immigrants arrive for various oppressive pressures, mostly non-economic.

(continued...)

(...continued)

Formally, I did not arrive as a refugee: I arrived legally, on a plane as an independent professional, but in my heart I was a refugee. My intention was not to become part of Australian society (nor to harm it either), but to escape the place I came from. If anything, I considered the Australian society as a nuisance. I wanted to be left to my own devices and would rather deal with the elements instead. Being younger at the time, I would have preferred to be treated as an animal and start building my life on my own (or with a like-minded community) than to be involved with Australian society and receive its benefits, but the option was not there and I had to compromise.

BTW, from what I've been told, conditions in Australian jails are in fact worse than in other countries. Prisoners are not allowed for example to bring in many personal items that are allowed elsewhere; even those who pose no danger to society get not leaves till the end as they get elsewhere; contact during visits is more limited than elsewhere.

"The humane action is to deter them from coming."

I agree. That's up to those who design the humane track. I do not claim to be an expert in the matter and once the "animal" track is available, I have no objection to being tougher on those who willingly select the humane track.