Dear SPQR,

If you can substantiate your statement the ideology of the source doesn't matter. Some of the asylum seekers may be dirty dogs. In a any bunch of people we can find some lowlifes. Some cops may be bent. Some soldiers may be gormless louts. That does not mean all cops, soldiers and asylum seekers are nogoods.

However, I think there has been an undue emphasis on the boat people by both major parties. This has served to obscure the consideration of more important problems. Malcolm Turnbull has made that point. Your statement that I cited may be true or it may be simply more vilification of asylum seekers. Citing the source would help me to evaluate the truth of it.

One of the problems with dividing people into lefties and righties is that you know longer have to think of them as individuals. I would rather not divide people up that way.

Dear Davidf,

<<If you can substantiate your statement… Some of the asylum seekers may be dirty dogs. In a any bunch of people we can find some lowlifes>>

So I see you already have prepared your escape clause: no matter how many cases/examples I cite it will still be just a few “dirty dogs”!

Just by way of an aside: It is rather ironic that you described/implied the individuals in my example were “dirty dogs”.
i) Given the individuals have shown their commitment to the fundamentalist cause , and
ii) Given what fundamentalists think of dogs.

Events around the adventures of David Hicks, have demonstrated that going overseas to fight for fundamentalist causes is not actionable under Australian law. However, events around the Eatock v Bolt case have shown that offending minority sensibilities is very much actionable under Australian law. I mean, it would be quite tragic if the individuals involved turned around and sued you –tragic, but in a way –poetic justice(And I'd feel duty bound to offer myself a witness for the prosecution!)

Anyway that link, here’s a couple of the Australian sources (there are overseas sources citing similar happenings in the US & Europe)
“dozens of young men to return to their homeland to join Islamic jihadis against the Ethiopian-backed Somali forces…”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/somalia-jihad-drive-probed/story-e6frg6of-1111115033793
“A religious scholar claims young Somali-Australians, who've gone to Somalia to fight with the terrorist group al-Shebaab, have returned and are living in Australia.”
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2693680.htm

What it demonstrates is not that here is case of a few dirty dogs –but:
1) Our vetting processes are full of holes (remember when we used to be told our processes were stringent and thorough --LOL), and
2) It is not our liberal-pluralistic values that are attracting many of our new citizens

SPQR wrote: "<<If you can substantiate your statement… Some of the asylum seekers may be dirty dogs. In a any bunch of people we can find some lowlifes>>

So I see you already have prepared your escape clause: no matter how many cases/examples I cite it will still be just a few “dirty dogs”!

Why is it necessary for you to denigrate me by accusing me of preparing an escape clause? However, the discussion was about the boat people. Remember - not documented immigrants who the stories referred to.

85% of refugees still on welfare after being here over 5 years is a compelling enough reason for me to not want them. Welfare for lifers.
Also 95% on most boats are men there is something seriously wrong with that figure because all other refugee centers in Africa Syria etc the majority are women and children.

To restate my contention: The government and the opposition have made the boat people into a great matter of discussion and concentrated on them to the exclusion of other matters.

The items that SPQR cited had nothing at all to do with the boat people.

Philip S, what is the source of your statistics and does it have anything at all to do with the boat people?

Dear David f,

<<However, the discussion was about the boat people. Remember - not documented immigrants who the stories referred to>>

It’s about asylum seekers/recipients to be exact.

So how do you propose the people in question entered OZ, David –our skilled migrant program?

Here’s a little more information which will hopefully clarify their origin:

<< In recent years we have seen thousands of new migrants from Africa… Of the 13,000 people accepted under Australia's refugee and humanitarian program in 2004-05, about 70 per cent were from Africa>>
<< about 10,000 are Somalis living in Melbourne…>>
<<Yesterday The Age reported warnings by an international Islamic scholar and leader of Sydney's Somali community that young Somali men were being drawn in by supporters of terrorism in Somalia and might even be used for attacks in Australia. In a speech to the Melbourne Somali community last night, Dr Herse Hilole said some Somalis had returned to Somalia from Melbourne and Sydney to take part in jihad, and some had been killed. Other Somali leaders in Melbourne deny Australian Somalis are engaged in jihad here or abroad>>
http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/making-australia-home-for-african-migrants/2007/04/13/1175971346880.html