Yuyutsu,

Australia has an annual refugee quota, as you rightly point out: around 18,750, perhaps plus some special extreme cases.

But what makes you think they are ('80-90 %') detained ? They have done all the right things, filled out all the right forms, and waited their turn. Out of 68 million, one could suppose that perhaps 1 % (680,000) have done that. And waited. And waited. Most of them would not have the ten grand to pay a smuggler, having, as my sweet little old very-refined English grandmother would say, not even a pot to piss in. Well, she WAS from the North.

Are you confusing legal and illegal refugees/boat-people/economic would-be migrants ?

For all the hoo-ha, Australia has a more generous refugee-intake policy that either the US (no surprise there) and NZ (big surprise !). Yes, that surprised me too.

As mechanisms for integrating genuine refugees satisfactorily improve, I'm all in favour of increasing the annual genuine refugee intake - it's what all countries should be doing. Not dramatically, but in step with the means of coping, and integrating people happily.

Joe

I think every Australia day is a time to celebrate every refugee, every other immigrant, every first person, every convict making this nation such a magnet to millions and millions. 1000 cheers!

Dear Paul and Joe,

Sorry for the mix-up: I wrongly misread the first post as if the 70%-90% figure pertained to the earlier-mentioned 18,750 refugees rather than only to those who come without notice.

On the topic, I do not believe it to be the role of government to make immigration quotas: it should only be for the people of Australia, individuals and charitable organisations, to determine who and how many come (and obviously to guarantee and provide from their own pockets that those who arrive do not disadvantage the rest of us financially). The role of government ought to be restricted to making sure that those who do arrive do not bring with them diseases, crime or terrorism.

As for those who arrive uninvited, they should not be detained (other than perhaps for an initial quarantine period to ensure that they do not pose health, crime or terrorism risks) or sent back, but rather have the status of animals, human-animals, with the appropriate rights and protections as per RSPCA guidelines. Otherwise, it is abhorrent that animals who arrive on our shores uninvited are treated better than humans who do!

I think that the past decade has shown that an orderly refugee intake is far better than the shambles of boat ferrying (and drowning) queue jumpers and economic migrants.

Albanese is already showing his true colours on illegals by dragging up the New Zealand offer to take illegals from Nauru and Manus.

Yep. A short stay in NZ, then it's open sesame to Australia. We have too much riffraff from that country now that we have to go to expense and trouble of deporting.

Albanese needs to be taught quickly that, while an opposition is necessary in a democracy, it is not supposed to be suggesting policy; particularly with Labor's record on encouraging illegal entrants in the past.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The English word "better" has a dual meaning - one means "more proper", "more righteous", "more moral", whereas the other means "more pleasant", "more comfortable", "more convenient".

The original connection was forgotten, that if one behaves righteously then in the long run, perhaps even the very long run, perhaps even after they die, they end up with pleasure and comforts. Many today do not even believe this to be the case, but somehow they still kept the word ambiguous.

It is indeed more pleasant and convenient when refugees arrive in an orderly manner, it is nice if it happens this way, but in real life this is not what refugees do and it is improper to lock people up or to send them back against their will - that is violence!

While we are not OBLIGED to do anything to help refugees (other than due to this stupid refugee-convention, which should be abandoned because nobody is truly willing to abide by it), we can still help refugees through the goodness of our heart, to any extent we want. Our generosity may be limited, which is fine, but at least we must avoid violence.

As for uninvited economic migrants, the way to handle them is to grant them animal rights instead of human rights. Since animals have no right to property and its protection, what is the point in economic migration if they cannot keep property and it is quite legal for anyone, including banks, to take away any money they accumulated? Anyone could even grab them and chain them up to a kennel, cage them as pets or work them out as farm animals. Farmers could even shoot them as pests or for their meat, so long as they do so quickly and painlessly (I don't recommend they do, but this would not be illegal). And if they drown when they try to come to Australia, well this is then their own doing!