Suze, I ask you again, where is the title displaying racism?

Also, given that you are a supporter of these uninvited guests, perhaps you can answer the questions that none of your friends have been able to to this point.

Given that we can't support our own people, where do you propose we get the money to fund them?

More importantly, what do you suggest we slash?

While it's all well and good to be a good Samaritan, surely you must understand that we must first look after our own, then share anything we have left. You know, charity starts at home.

Now I will offer you the same leniency as I did Foxy if you can't answer the SIMPLE question.

Dear o sung wu,

Think about it. Australia was judging nearly 95% of refugees from Sri Lanka as legitimate. That ratio has slipped to around 50%. Some of this drop I have no doubt is for valid reasons but most of it is because of more onerous criteria, primarily aimed at dissuading others.

If I was going to run a 50% chance of being returned to a country where I was in fear of my life then I, knowing how much harder it is to return undocumented people (since often that country will refuse to take them), would probably turf my papers (what few I might have), as well.

Being that as it may I am not convinced the majority of those fleeing arrest or a death squad would always have access to all their documentation. Actually having everything on their person would probably be pretty incriminating if stopped in port.

I hardly think that the 'advanced screening' that Australia imposes on Sri Lankan refugees will see any of them being able to mount a plausible story if they were not Tamil.

All of this is just surmising though and I'm not sure there is a definitive source for numbers or reasons given for those ditching whatever documentation they have. We are all guessing.

Dear Belly,

Extremists in Australia? Who on earth are you talking about?

The Malaysia deal.

So perhaps you can tell me Belly, just where do you think we would be sittig right now had we accepted the Malasia deal.

My calculations suggest that had we gone down that path we would now be housing, feeding and caring for about 250,000, not 50,000.

Now given we can't support the 50,000, how do you propose we would have supported five times that amount.

Actually I should rephrase that a little, as we have supported the 50,000, it's just that in order to do so we had to rob our own people of their hard earned entitlements.

God knows how many destitue pensioners or homeless people we would have today had we gone down your suggested path because it's our own who pay the ultimate price, as NOT A SINGLE ONE of those 50,000 go without a meal, or shelter.

It's all well and good to have a kind heart, but first you need the money, and we ain't got that anymore that's to you know who.

Steel,

You couldn't lie straight in bed!

<<Negombo ...is 'Little Rome'...2/3rds of its leading schools are Christian >>

However you try and spin it. The fact remains that the huge major Tamils in Sri Lanka identify as Hindu. And your, sleight of hand like, attempt to pass them off as Christians whose only soul mates are far away in Oz is deceitful.

And here's you trying to reword that deceit:
<< a Hindu would be any less deserving of our help ... many [SR refugees in India] live in abject poverty in constant threat of intimidation and arrest from Indian authorities>>

I reckon you just made that up!

Two responses:
1) The refugee convention was -NEVER- meant as a way for anyone to improve their economic status.It was only ever intended as a means of providing sanctuary --and temporary sanctuary at that!

So contrary to your little mission statement<<Whether that desperation is born of fear of persecution or of dire economic straights is almost irrelevant>> http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6194#180546

It is HIGHLY RELEVANT!

2)Further, your comment: "poverty in constant threat of intimidation and arrest from Indian authorities" is pure BS!

Here is a quote from THE HINDU of June 20, 2013 (an Indian newspaper):

"the State government[of Tamil Nadu] has been providing them with temporary housing, free medical care, and education up to secondary level, cash doles, subsidised rice, clothing material and utensils, for their survival"

And the same article goes on to mention that there are calls to grant them full citizenship of India

But guess what? none of the above compare with the freebies on offer in OZ --so that is why the crafty ones boat-on to OZ!

<As for ... Amnesty International [said this and]...Hilary Clinton [said that] [and your aunty Maud said something else]

I'm also aware of this:
"Sri Lanka’s main Tamil party won a landslide victory Sunday....The opposition Tamil National Alliance won 30 out of 38 seats in polls for a provincial council in the former war zone...Saturday’s vote... has been promoted by the UN Human Rights Council"
http://www.arabnews.com/news/465474

Fair go! even you mate should understand boats would have stopped long ago.
Before shouting.
Consider this Tony Abbott may soon [if relations with Indonesia continue to fail], stop the boats by using under another name this solution.
Sending every boar arrival almost instantly, to Malaysia would stop the boats.
Do away with the need for on or of shore detention and save us heaps.
Would you pay ten grand to get to Australia and be sent to Malaysia with no prospects of ever coming here?

....Would you pay ten grand to get to Australia and be sent to Malaysia with no prospects of ever coming here?

Belly, that wasn't Rudds Malaysia deal. His deal was, we send 400 there, we take 8000 in return.

The other issue was potential abuse and we didn't want to be a part of that.

Now there is an argument to suggest we are being abusive by sending them back, different type of abuse and one that should lead to them stopping.