cont'd ...Dear Shocker,

Your statement that we can refuse entry to whoever we choose
is actually inaccurate. We can't - unless we tear up the
Refugee Convention which we've signed - and also choose to
ignore human rights and international laws -
which could have serious
repercussions to us as a nation globally.
However, what we are entitled to do is of course lobby our
federal MPs to make changes for what we don't believe in.
That is our prerogative. Of course it doesn't mean that
we're going to be listened to. Pollies tend to do things
their own way. But you can always try.

Foxy,

This is what another nation, Canada, says (below). Why should you believe that Australia should be weak and not do the same to protect its citizens and borders?

<Managing access to Canada

Snapshot

Enforcement activities are essential to managing access to Canada in order to preserve the integrity of the immigration and refugee program, and to protect the health, safety and good order of Canadian society. Enforcement activities include preventing illegal migrants and other undesirables from entering Canada; identifying and removing criminals, illegal migrants, failed refugee protection claimants and illegal visitors from Canada; and ensuring that the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act are respected. Enforcement activities take place abroad, at ports of entry to Canada, and within Canada.>

http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/media/facts-faits/037-eng.html

Only the ratbag Greens believe in open borders. It is interesting though that none of the Greens senators including Bob Brown and Christine Milne and presumably not you either, ever volunteered to take in any of those buff young male 'asylum seekers'* into your home, even though the previous Labor/Greens government undertook to pay you handsomely if you did.

*PM Gillard and her Foreign Minister Carr referred to them instead as economic migrants.

Dear Shocker and Banjo,

Here's a link on asylum seekers: what other countries do:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/asylum-seekers-what-other-countries-do-20120813-244fs.html

Dear onthebeach,

You have had a direct request not to engage with Foxy on this thread. Perhaps a parting shot is not a hanging offence but you have come back for more.

In my view this behaviour has become harassing and not in keeping with the spirit nor the rules of the forum.

Graham recently appraised the both of us of those rules which can be found here.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/display.asp?page=legal

You are perfectly within your rights to reference and explore any points Foxy makes on the thread but this can be done without addressing her personally.

If in future I was to transgress the above referenced rules I am more than happy for you to take me to task. Perhaps with a little effort we work to make this forum a more respectful place while still maintaining the vigour essential for an opinion site to flourish.

Foxy,

No, Ms Kwerk the reporter was referring to asylum seekers, not illegal immigrants - or economic migrants as your previous Labor/Greens government preferred.

Are you calling Julia Gillard and Bob Carr liars?

Foxy,
Persons that enter Aus legally (with a valid visa) and then seek asylum are free to go about their business while their application is processed.

Makes one wonder why more, who consider themselves genuine refugees, do not take the legal route and enter safely by air. The obvious answer is because they are not genuine refugees so are prepared to pay far more to get on a leaky boat in effort to jump the back fence.

We are told that only about 30% of those that enter legally and then seek asylum are successful. Interesting to know if all the failed applicants leave voluntary and if not do they simply go underground and become part of the over stayers.