They are not all unskilled bludgers. We have had doctors and other professionals in the past, who if they hadn't been detained by the Howard government for so long would have made a good contribution to this country.

One thing you have to credit them for is the courage and initiative it would take to escape from where they came and then battle it out on a leaky boat only to be met by further hostility.

I have said many times that I am against asylum seekers being housed in motels, hotels, caravan parks and other places after they are released from detention and awaiting Public Housing. Meanwhile other homeless Australians have to live garages, parks, alley-ways, and under bridges.

The thing is; this situation is not the fault of the refugees, its the fault of our Governments by not being competent enough is knowing how to spend the Australian's tax dollars.

If pollies gave up part of their lurks 'n' perks and "junkets" then Australia would have enough money to build permanent accommodation for everyone.

mantra wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:


Neither do we have any say in who boards these boats, so your point cancels itself out.

The 1951 Refugee Agreement is merely a voluntary signed article.

It has no legal standing, Australian law overrides it and it is not policed by any body.

France routinely ignores it and is a member of the Security Council!

There is nothing legally binding Australia to accept these losers.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 1:06pm:

What a cop out, you have no idea.

To sympathize with those who are less fortunate is honorable and decent. A man able to commiserate only with himself would surely be neither admirable nor attractive. But every virtue can become deformed by excess, insincerity, or loose thinking into an opposing vice. Sympathy, when excessive, moves toward sentimental condescension and eventually disdain; when insincere, it becomes unctuously hypocritical; and when associated with loose thinking, it is a bad guide to policy and frequently has disastrous results. It is possible, of course, to combine all three errors.
http://www.city-journal.org/2010/20_2_otbie-sympathy.html

Quote:
-skippy

I think that many would not care what the rest of the world thinks.
I think many have their own idealised concept of an Australia that is somehow independent of, and apart from, the rest of the world, and do not care how bigoted and racist other nations think we are.

The people that bang on about boats as being a crisis, usually fall into that category.

However, the rest of us that do care about our reputation abroad, and do feel that we need to act as part of a caring global community, are repulsed at the victimisation of these small numbers of desperate refugees that take that most dangerous journey in the hope of finding freedom and a better life.

The Labor party needs to take a long hard look at itself for giving legs to the vilification of boat people, in their desperate attempt to secure votes, it was a shameful thing for them to do.

Stopping people from wishing to come here is easy, Howard knew that, just make it a bad option.
How?
By making sure that those who try suffer.
Suffer long, and suffer hard.
He knew it, he did it, it worked, but when he was doing it the Labor party condemned it, but when they had to choose between risking votes, and doing the right thing, they chose to do the wrong thing, and mimic some of Howard's actions, and the vast swing to the Greens from Labor was in no small part due to this bad decision.

I don't care if Abbott would have been worse, there are some principles that even politicians should not be prepared to sacrifice for political advantage.