Threads like this should also be deliberating on the growing large scale movements of economic migrants.

It is possible that western liberal democracies as we know them will be fighting from the back foot to maintain their existing economic, social and political systems. The changes are already apparent and irreversible some say.

O sung wu, thanks for your thoughts but my questions were really directed at the pro Asylum posters, they never answer them though.
If Norway can't make it work, can't assimilate these thousands of hostile Muslim men using their Scandinavian model of ultra liberal "compassion" then a reasonable person would conclude that liberal compassion is not the answer to this problem.
Steele mentioned his Dad and his role in the "good war" and it important to keep the memory of that conflict alive for several reason, in the context of this discussion the most important consideration is the long term effects of trauma and PTSD upon people who've been in combat zones or severe civil disturbances.
My grandfather served in the Middle East and New Guinea, recently I was reminiscing with my Mum about all the old soldiers in our neighbourhood when I was kid, the general drunkeness, the domestic problems and old George up on the corner who'd on occasion run screaming down the street in his pyjamas, off his head with fear after another nightmare about New Guinea.
Mum said most everyone whose Dad served suffered growing up and the "progressives" cosistently hold up the 1950's as a cultural low point in our history. So my question to the pro asylum people is what do you hope to achieve by bringing in thousands of traumatised men from the Third World when you know exactly what happens when masses of traumatised men enter society at once? Bear in mind also that the returned servicemen all spoke the language, were mostly able to go back to work and had family and friends to return to, this is not the case with Asylum seekers.

On The Beach asked:

What do you say should be:
- the maximum number of 'asylum seekers' taken by Australia a year; and
- out of what maximum total number of immigrants?

The floors are awash with piddle from the pee-ing contests that have preceded and followed the asking of this question. Does anyone have any actual thoughts about the answer?

I have referred to the nature of decent countries and crap countries and the primary responsibility of the traditions of the crap countries for the refugee crisis. Since on sheer numbers we need accept only the best of the 50 million-plus wannabe immigrants we should be looking at whom we should accept.

First, we should REJECT anyone who is known to share toxic intentions and ideology - that which specifically rejects the rights of a humanity free of tyranny. That means Moslems, including Rohingya, who can't show willing to give Islam up – totally – and also excludes racist tribal savages. Second, we should DISCRIMINATE IN FAVOUR OF anyone who is known to have persistently opposed enemies of liberty including theocrats and fascists and racists. Other favourable attributes to be weighed against any negatives include fighting for the right to territorial self-determination.

We should also try to have room for passive victims of oppression imposed on the basis of who they are (e.g. genetics, gender, sexuality) provided they can show they won't seek to reinstate the oppression in Australia.

By focusing on quality we can have a positive outreach and at the same time build further an Australia founded on the Enlightenment and entitled to be accepted as realistically compassionate.

STEELEREDUX...

Wow, when you seek answers, you seek answers ! For a moment I thought I'd inadvertently stumbled into a 'likeness' of none other then the egregious Monsieur ROBESPIERRE, with his incessant inquisitorial style of enquiry ?

Anyway, I find it quite disappointing that you choose to call JAY of MELBOURNE a 'racist' ? How would you know, you don't know what's in his heart or mind ? From my angle, I see a family man who's justly apprehensive of the sort of country Australia seems to have become ? Like many adults, he is understandably alarmed, in fact uneasy when he witnesses these, not previously seen, Islamic (racial) lawlessness that are occurring with more frequency, in and about our larger cities ?

And because of this, you choose to call him a racist ? Why, and how would you know whether that gentleman is a racist ? Clearly, you don't ! And you wonder why others here choose to give you a serve ?

Originally you asked that I qualify my 'confusion' apropos the several 'memoranda' that I'd sent to POIROT ? And the extent that I tried to modify or reconcile my comments that were contained within that memoranda, probably quite unsuccessfully ? Be that as it may, it was important to me (personally), that she didn't take anything that I'd said, as any sort of sustained admonishment ?

The thing is STEELEREDUX, though POIROT and I are probably quite diametrically different, in our politically proclivities, our social ideology and even our religious beliefs, I have enormous respect for her, without any qualification ! Therefore the very thought that I may have upset her, either by a careless choice of words, or by some misunderstood intent, was worrying ?

Unlike M. ROBESPIERRE, I seek only one comment from you STEELEREDUX ?How do you account for the apparent 'unravelling', thus ending in violence, of what little harmony that may've existed in first world countries, who've magnanimously opened their doors to Muslim refugees ?

Those of you who are genuinely interested
in refugee resettlement could have simply
Googled the subject.

Anyway, here's a website that makes a few
suggestions:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-to-make-our-asylum-seeker-policy-firm-but-fairer-20140323-35bo5.html

For a western society to function, for it to have "compassion" and "justice" the most basic and essential element is trust among it's citizens, high trust of your neighbours is a European racial trait which is absent among most other groups.
Multiculturalism has been shown in numerous studies to break down trust both between ethnic groups and within ethnic groups, people in multi racial communities are less likely to volunteer, give money to charity, to seek entertainment in their neighbourhood or talk to their neighbours.
The pro illegal immigrant posters use words like just and good and decent but all those qualities are further and further degraded the more diverse our society becomes.
How can anyone trust Muslims based solely on their reputation? How can anyone trust a person who's suicidal or mentally ill from PTSD, depression and anxiety caused by exposure to war and trauma? How can anyone trust someone with whom they have no common language, no common religion or common interests?
We have it on record from the people who invented the ideal we now know as multiculturalism that their goal was to destroy the dominant societies of Europe, to as Peter Hitchins put it "Rub the faces of the right in diversity". There is no question that multiculturalism was designed as a system to destroy host societies and the people who promote and enable it style themselves as an elite or caste above commoners and ignorant "Bogans".
We also have the issues of age and gender, with multiculturalism being the popular cause among middle aged White women, the trouble with women is that they rarely act for the common good and always follow their own agendas which are inevitably linked to self esteem and social social staus among other women. Women in 2015 are obsessed with signalling their social status to others and the internet is the perfect medium for them to do so, everything they post boils down to "This will make me look good in the eyes of the others, I'm part of the group as long as I write these words".