SM,

""The doctor in question is not involved in assessing asylum claims, nor should she be."

"Doctors deal with patients face to face all the time with regards health and other issues, and are probably more qualified than anyone else to judge whether a person is lying or not. She has not quantified nor identified those illegals she says are non genuine, but it is clear that she knows that many are blatantly lying about their situation, and that their expectations are less about freedom from persecution, and more about a lifestyle they aspire to......Her disgust at the dishonesty of the economic refugees is far more believable than the left whingers claims that all these cashed up illegals who have destroyed their documents and have almost identical stories are genuinely fleeing persecution."

make up your mind.

You are using this woman's opinions to bolster the case that asylum seekers are overwhelmingly dishonest - cashed-up illegals who pull the wool over assessor's eyes.

Then up the top you state (I repeat) "The doctor in question is not involved in assessing asylum claims, nor should she be."

According to you and others here, her "opinion" is all the proof you need to push your line.

Give them nothing except the very basics of life. No cigarettes, no cosmetics, no grog, no designer clothes, no TV, no phones, no internet access. Nothing except basic medical and food. Nothing more

Chris,

In your list of things "not" to give them you left out "compassion".

Oh.... right...ignore that last sentence.

You fellas have got that one covered.

Poirot,

Obviously you don't have the IQ to process the logic. So I will use small words:

1) The doctor is in a particular position to have detailed knowledge of the asylum claimants and the genuineness of their claims far beyond most of the people actually doing the assessments.

2) Due to doctor patient confidentiality requirements, being involved in the assessment of the individuals' would be a clear breach of ethics. (which makes your suggestion idiotic)

3) A general statement by the doctor, without mentioning individuals, with respect to the genuineness of claims does not breach any code of ethics.

4) Having sacrificed much to assist people in need, the Dr cannot be accused of bias against the asylum seekers.

Taking points 1,2,3, and 4. above, the Dr's opinion carries significant weight, certainly more than any activist, and is as much as she can say without breaching confidentiality. You certainly are not in any position to dismiss her opinion.

Also don't put words in my mouth. I am claiming that many "asylum seekers are dishonest rat bags, not the overwhelming majority.

SM, you said "small words" ! Some of the words you used had four and even more syllables: 'confidentiality' for instance. How do you expect a up-herself half-wit like Poirot to understand those ?!

Speaking to small children, I know, is difficult, but we have to keep trying :)

To get back to underlying topic: boat-people/illegal 'refugees':

* there are more than forty million refugees and displaced people across the world.

* Australia could increase its intake to, say 25,000 or 30,000. But they still would have to be properly processed.

So what to do with people who try to jump the the queue ? And if some people, like the wife of a friend of mine, have been waiting sixteen years, there's a queue.

As 'line of sight' entrants, children in the Greens Party would say 'take them all'. And, if that was government practice, what impact would that have on the flow of such 'refugees' into Indonesia - would it

(a) stem the flow, or

(b) increase the flow ? or

(c) have no impact at all ?

For the sake of children like Poirot, I should spell it out: (b) is the right answer.

Alternatively, if we take only those 25,000-30,000 per year waiting in desert sh!t-holes year after year after applying properly, with barely a pot to p!ss in, let alone twenty thousand dollars; and fly everybody else back, what might be the impact on the flow of such people to Indonesia: would it (a), (b) or (c) ?

Even Poirot could surely guess the right answer.

Or do we take only those we see in boats ? Not the poor buggers out in the deserts ? Hard-hearted indeed.

Joe

Foxi,
Why would I want to have compassion for someone whos declared aim, straight out of the Koran, is to kill off the 'infidel' Me?