I don't think so, individual.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-23/aboriginal-dna-dates-australian-arrival/2913010

"Sequencing of a West Australian Aboriginal man's hair shows he was directly descended from a migration out of Africa into Asia which took place about 70,000 years ago."

"...Aboriginal Australians have had a longer continuous relationship with the land than any other race of people."

Belly,
Why do you keep going on about Abbott,Abbott, Abbott? The Libs are backing a policy that has worked. i.e. Nauru plus TPVs.

This government stuffed that up and caused the present problem, so it is up to them to admitt they were wrong and revert to the previous policy. That would be a good starting point to stop the boats from coming.

The problem here is that the Gillard government will not admitt it was wrong. Gillard yesterday asked the Senate to 'examine their consience'. She should be doing just that as her government has the blood of over 800 people on her hands.

Easy to stop the boats coming, just revert to previous policy and if they still do not stop impose even more disincentives, like no papers or passports no entry, no right of appeal, no legal aid. Keep them at Nauru. I could soon stop them, it is not rocket science. I just requires a bit of backbone.

If you were backing a horse, would you back a first starter or a proven winner?

a migration out of Africa into Asia which took place about 70,000 years ago."
Poirot,
I tend to believe that.

"...Aboriginal Australians have had a longer continuous relationship with the land than any other race of people."
I have no qualms about that either. Also, don't discount the fact they also can lay claim to have been the most isolated as well.

But going back to the boat people, Australia will be a major contributor to the making of refugees if it continues to take them in. The Welfare system is already broken & the only way to keep these immigrants is by taking more from those who filled the coffers in the first place. I'd love to see a statement from boat people where they say that getting off welfare & pulling their own weight is one of their priorities. My guess is that their first Dollars made here go straight back to their country to pay for more boat people to make their way here.

@Poirot,

<<sequencing of a West Australian Aboriginal man's hair shows he was directly descended from a migration out of Africa into Asia which took place about 70,000 years ago>>

Just a couple of points of logic:

1) It doesn’t necessarily follow that because your source says they were <<directly descended from a [70,000] migration >> that they arrived here first. That finding does not address the issue of when they arrived. So it does NOT/ CANNOT disprove Individuals point/argument

2) Nor, does it prove that there was ONE THEY. It is highly likely there where many theys. Seeing aborigines as a monolithic “THEY” is a modern construct of those on the left.

Dear Individual,

The first human inhabitants of Australia were
the Aborigines:

http://panique.com.au/trishansoz/aborigine/aborigin.html

BTW - you need to do some research about the real benefits
for asylum seekers in Australia. The following link may help:

http://www.kochie.com.au/the-real-benefits-for-asylum-seekers-in-australia

There's plenty of information available on the web regarding
these issues - all you have to do is Google it.

Whatever you say, SPQR.

Frankly I can't be bothered arguing pedantic points this morning. I just thought it was interesting that when the forebears of the Australian Aboriginal race began their journey, the Europeans hadn't even branched off from Africa and the Middle-East. I find it interesting to follow the assembling of the jigsaw of human migration.

Carry on.