These sentiments remind me of the St Louis. Tough titties - back to your concentration camps. The b*stards should have had visas. End of story.

But the law of the world says all borders must be open to refugees.

Imagine if every country decided to close them.

Wait, we did that already in 1938 and it didn't work out too well.

Well, we could list all the "laws of the world" that are either poorly applied or completely ignored by a lot of nations. That would take a while.

Or, we could do our elected members a favour by acknowledging that decisions of such complexity in a world that is decidedly imperfect are incredibly difficult and involve really challenging moral compromises. This might free them up to make good decisions instead of just sounding off to the electorate.

I have been suggesting we send in the pill to Africa and other countries where there is so much poverty and starvation since 1965.

Agree. The 1951 UNHCR Refugee Convention is now being exploited by economic refugees and was not designed to be able to distinguish between them and political refugees.

You have not a trace of evidence to prove that those who come by sea are doing that though.

And YOU don't have a shred of evidence that all refugees are purely fleeing political persecution.

Captain Emad was certainly not fleeing political persecution!

How many jewelry store did he own in Malaysia?????????

There is significant evidence actually Greg, take a look at the numbers being accepted as genuine refugees. They have background checks which at present can take up to several years to verify their stories before they are accepted. Mistakes do get made, I am unsure but it may be possible that you have made one before in your life. Was that an acceptable thing or should all people stop making errors today or face your wrath.

The many problems of the world are complex, as Mark Harrigan explains so well below. Yelling about the most simplistic view of an issue does not make you right. You should also remember that everything you hear on the commercial news and on shock jock radio is not always true, sometimes they throw some razzle dazzle in to up the ratings and get people angry.

Maybe try to relax a little and look through some facts, dept of immigration has numerous white papers as do numerous other organisations working in this field.

I have made only a couple of points on ecological sustainability but I think it is enough to show that population is not the real issue, its mismanagement. The depts of sustainability and environment around the country have numerous documents showing that we should be doing exactly the opposite of what our policy makers are doing, unfortunately the opinion of mass media is more important the the knowledge of our leading scientists.

I know someone who worked on the water plan for Vic, they weren't quite sure where the part proposing the desalination plant came from, but one day there it was stuck to the back of their report as the number one recommendation. It was the most expensive option and provided a fraction of the water of numerous other options. But it sure does sound cool and provides good hard hat photo ops.

Its sad how our policy gets made, its to the detriment of all but a few.

I am assuming this is an area of science you are well versed in and you can point me to a number of studies illustrating your point. I am always happy to be proven wrong.

These are good articles and its a good book. I suppose here again I am wondering about relevance to the Australian situation and refugees. Slowing the migration / humanitarian intake does nothing for global population growth or sustainability. Improving sustainability in Australia can serve as an example to the rest of the world and help to reduce consumption and improve sustainability.

This is a situation where wanting less people is not going to make it happen, the people exist, we need policies that deal with this fact logically. Australia does support some family planning programs in the third world, they aren't going to take effect overnight. From all the evidence I've ever seen the best place to put resources is in the emancipation and education of women if you want to reduce birth rates. Having people in Australia, where they receive opportunity and education is likely to reduce the number of children born to those people, reducing overall population growth.

Now to address your continued exasperating questioning of the link between population and consumption. It just blows me away that you cannot see the bleeding obvious!

We will do some remedial mathematics on the issue by means of an metaphor that you surely cannot fail to ‘get’.

Consider a water tank containing 10000L of water and an average daily inflow of 1000L.

10 People live off this water tank and consume, on average, 100L per day. That includes washing, cooking and cleaning etc.

So on average 10 people consume the entire average daily inflow and there is a considerable 10,000L buffer in case of prolonged dry spells with no daily inflow into the tank. I.E. If there was no daily inflow into the tank at all then those 10 people could hold out for 10 days.

There is room for consumption reduction but each person cannot consume less than 1L per day without dying of dehydration.

So 10 immigrants arrive and request that they be allowed to use the tank and the existing residents agree.

Now there are 20 people consuming 100L of water per day for a total community consumption of 2000L per day.

That means that, even with 100L average inflow per day, the tank will run dry in 10000L / 1000L (additional consumption) = 10 days.

So all get together and agree reduce their individual daily water consumption, by not taking showers etc, to 50L per day. 20 people by 50L per day = 1000L total per day = 1000L per day average inflow. Great, now they can all live off the tank sustainably.

Another 20 immigrants arrive and request asylum at the tank. Now everyone must reduce their daily consumption to 25L.

Another 40 immigrants arrive and request asylum at the tank. Now everyone must reduce their daily consumption to 12.5L per day.
Surely you can see what is eventually going to happen here Kurt?

Everyone will be reduced to a miserable existence and still the tank will run dry and everyone will die of dehydration.

Australia is pretty much in this situation relative to the rest of the world, although the picture is a great deal more complex than this metaphor. Never the less the fundamental truth of it holds.

In Australia not only is water a scarce resource, but fertile soil for growing food, fish stocks and timber etc.

And there will be riots in the streets long before we are all forced to endure subsistence consumption levels.

Also it is price rises rather than rationing that forces us to consume less. So yes Kurt, the large our population is the higher will be our cost of living until it is unbearable and riots and ethnic clashes ensue.

Greg, you seem so very sure of your opinions and conclusions in this matter. And you make many didactic claims. But you offer no evidence to support them.

Let's deal with water.

Perhaps you should look at some facts? http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/CAE301277A675941CA257956000E646E?opendocument

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/41362.html

Both these sources of information show there is ample support for Kurt's approach.

Finally - to debunk you analogy.

Water cannot be destroyed, only transformed. In one of your intake of refugees is a cleaver fellow who has invented improved water recycling technology along with improvemed catchment facilities.

Bingo, greater supply, less net consumption - greater carrying capacity.

The problem with you doomsday malthusians, especially those who use the argument of the environement to build a fortress australia - is that you have a "glass half empty" that can nevee be fixed mentality.

If you were serious about the population issue (which is really a non-renewable resource ocnsumption issue) and not selfishly myopic - you would be directing your energies at a global scale.

Ethicallt and practically that's where steps need to be taken

Greg, offering ad-hominem style arguments is both offensive and illogical. In effect you are saying I must be wrong because I have no science training?

Laughable. I have a PhD in Physics - I think my science training is pretty good.

In any event the question is to be decided on the evidence. Not assertions. I have offered some, you have offered none.

I do not doubt that the management of water is a problem. But I have pointed to factual sources to indicate that this, along woith other resources issues, is a flimsy case for arguing against refugee intake/assylum seeker acceptance

Greg - I can see you are not worth having a sensible discussion with.

So far you have used ad-hominem, emotive language, reductio ad absurdum, and bad analogy.

Not to mention ascribing statements to me I have not made.

That's a pretty extensive use of the standrad dishonest tricks of argument http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Clear_Thinking/Informal_Fallacies/Tricks/tricks.html

Perhaps you also need to read and understand your own links?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=population-and-sustainability
"To make a dent in these problems in the short term without throwing anyone overboard, we will need to radically reduce individuals’ footprint on the environment through improvements in technology and possibly wrenching changes in lifestyle."

and
http://www.unfpa.org/6billion/populationissues/development.htm
"Inherent in the concept of sustainable development is the principle of equity: in order to achieve economic and environmental goals, social goals – such as universal access to education, health care and economic opportunity – must also be achieved. "

No mention there of restricting migration because of a selfish desire to keep Australia to ourselves. Rather a fairly eithical equitable and global approach.

So even your own sources do not support you argument. Which frankly is starting to come across as disguised bigotry.

I prefer a global perspective.

Between 1980 and 2002, the resources required to produce $1,000 worth of consumer goods fell from 2.1 metric tons to just 1.6 metric tons and global per capita income has increased seven-fold. (Yes - the poor are not getting poorer despite the myths - we are all getting richer - which is not to deny there are still 1.5 billion in poverty and income distribution is a problem).

The bad news is that trend will not necessarily continue and—in absolute terms—resource consumption has increased 10-fold since 1900.

Evidence shows that as poorer countries get richer their population growth slows - so short of a war/famine or disaster one of the priorities ought to be how to improve the wealth of poorer nations not to mention the education levels - especially amongst women (which will be the big impact on reducing fertility).

I would very much support moves for us all to reduce our consumption. I do not see how railing against assylum seekers coming here is relevant to that.

The story on Captain Emad was a hoax. God you are ridiculous.

He only helped his family to safety and it took years to do it.

What is the crime in that.

Greg, you claim we don't understand science but you are not using science to counter the argument, you are using a rather extreme metaphore. Using your metaphore, what is actually happening in the refugee debate is:
Lets start with your 10 people on the island. To make it at all sensible I will need to include our entire migrant intake as planned by our govt at present, 190,000, but I'll need to increase that further for it to really be workable in your metaphore. So, in this metaphore let us say we will increase our migrant intake to 1,000,000 per year, a figure suggested by no one.

Under this new assumption, your island would get 1 new person per year rather than increasing the number of persons on the island by over 4 times as in your metaphore. You believe we are facing disaster because of this population explosion, however the explosion is rather small relative to the existing population size. However the potential reduction in resource usage at present is very large.

"Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises."

Of course there is an effect on sustainability based on population size, however you can't then change the variables to suit your argument. The population is predicted to rise to about 9 billion by 2050, that is roughly a 30% increase not a 400% increase.

In Australia, our ability to improve efficiency is quite large at present, as I mentioned many parts of europe use less than a third of our water consumption, using your basic maths argument we should therefore be able to triple our population without a problem. However, I do not make that simplistic mathematic argument, things aren't that simple.

Also, the main argument I have re the refugee debate is that the problem exists now; would things be easier if the population suddenly halved but we kept all of the positives associated with our modern society, yes. But that is not the reality. Changing the breeding behaviour of the majority of the planet is not a simple task, and is something I do not see as achievable any time soon. Improving our resource usage is happening now, across the planet. Australia is getting on board finally, well behind the rest of the world with the carbon tax, and shame on us for choosing the most efficient method to start moving to a more efficient economy.

The quickest way to reduce family size is to improve the economic sustainability of people, mainly women, there is no magic wand. Better resource usage in the west can assist with improving the living standard of those in the third world by showing how less resources can be used. It is our research and technology that will be used in the third world to improve their living standards, thereby reducing their birth rates and population growth.

I resort to ad hominem in frustration when it becomes obvious to me that know amount a rational discussion or evidence will convince a combatant who simply does not want to be convinced.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=population-and-sustainability

Mark the key word with this was SHORT TERM. Reducing individual consumption is a short term measure to reduce environmental impact.......and GOOD LUCK with that. I have little confidence that it can be acheived to any signficant level.

In the long term the only solution is population reduction and population management there after.

And my analogy was just that, a very simplifed scenario to make the concept more understable to some one who just doesn't get it.

As a physicist yo must know how analogy are used to help student in understanding a concept in physics.

They are clearly not meant to be taken literally! And nor was my anaology.

QUOTE
The bad news is that trend will not necessarily continue and—in absolute terms—resource consumption has increased 10-fold since 1900.
END QUOTE

The article may have turned out to be discussing short term resposnses to over population, which do not involve fertility control, but it never the less recognizes that over population is an issue here and now.

Perhaps you prefer this article then Mark:
http://www.fao.org/docrep/U3550t/u3550t02.htm

Surely you are not going to sit here and deny that over population, and particularly its effects on food security and political stability, are a real concern of many very prominent people in the world.

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/Demo_Trends_For_Web.pdf
QUOTE
Population growth has contributed to revolutions and expansionism:
- Population growth in 18th century France played a key role in the French Revolution
- Japanese imperialism from the 1870s to 1945 was fueled in part by its rise in population.

Greg, can you detail the practical steps in your population control and reduction plan globally. Both Mark and I have explained how population control occurs naturally through increased socio economics, something that is actually occurring in the real world now. I have also explained how more sustainable practices can assist in the progress to better socio economic standing. I also mentioned early on that family planning in the third world is a positive step that western NGOs are working on.

The facts are not in dispute, the simplistic argument that this single cause leads directly the destruction of the world is. The issues are complex as I have stated numerous times but you have not made any suggestion of a practical solution. In fact population control is a small part, and an effect of, the solutions the people you are insinuating are stupid are suggesting.

Once again Greg, I do not see a solution in your answer. Population in this debate, to me, is like saying that heat is the problem in the Climate Change debate. Its a symptom, not the cause. The solution you keep mentioning is to keep Australia's population stagnant, but the issues you mention are global, peak oil, peak fish etc. What is your solution to this issue globally? Or, do you believe that if Australia's population remains stagnant we will not be effected by peak oil, peak fish etc?

Interesting isn't it... this posturing about population, sustainability and western liberal technological civilisation?

Underneath this fig leaf of concern for the planet is nothing more than jingoistic nationalism - the delusion of going it alone - a rejection of notions like liberalism, humanism and democracy ... suspicion of the foreigners and those who assess their claims of persecution... conspiracies abound under every bush.

Methinks I'm watching Ms Hanson's dance of the seven veils here.

How curious that sustainability should become a code for Our Way of Life and fending off the world. Deep madness.

Done. It is a symtom and a cause of numerous inter-related issues of this planet. I have made several suggestions of ways to work towards dealing with these issues as have others. Stopping migration to Australia is not one of them as it seems to be so completely unrelated to global sustainability. I pose my earlier question again. What is your solution to this issue globally? Or, do you believe that if Australia's population remains stagnant we will not be effected by peak oil, peak fish etc?

Kurt, you are missing the point - this fella knows nothing about such matters and cares even less. This is about Us ... our way of life... our standard of living - being eroded and diluted by letting a whole swag of foreigners in here to eat everything and make us live in little apartments.

That is all he cares about.

Nothing to do with sustainability, nothing to do with resources, nothing to do with the rest of the world - it's just US and going it alone.... puling up the drawbridge and fortifying ourselves against the rest of the planet.

Pauline Hanson in an Indian skirt.

Thanks Peter, I am aware, I have encountered these population scare mongers before. The sad thing is I am sure that he is fully aware that his argument for a small Australia based on sustainability is rubbish, but there are many impressionable folks out there who will listen to this and start to believe.

I worry about this type of argument taking hold, as the many non-white migrants who help to make this country great will be the ones affected in the end; at the present time the muslim community feel it more than any other. I am feeling, now more than ever, that the ignorant, fearful and intolerant are being encouraged and brought out by our opposition leader. I will continue to attack their arguments when I have the time.

Thanks Kurt and Peter.

Greg simply refuses to admit that his concerns are global, not merely local. He won't admit to using them as an excuse for anti-assylum seeker bigotry because that would expose his prejudice.

There is no evidence from Greg (or that exists I suggest) that simply drawing up the walls of Fortress Australia will have any impact on the legitmate global problems of over consumption of non-renewable resources.

The best way to lachieve a goal of a global human populace not living outside the renewable limits of the planet is to manage (global) population growth by increasing the wealth and education levels of societies (espeically the women) that are the most poor whilst at the same time changing the nature and reducing the quantum of consumption of more developed richer nations.

And Australia might do it's fair share by encouraging more immigration to relieve pressure in more densely populated poor nations.

I see no point in continuing to engage with Greg on these points though as he appears incapable of proper logic, reasoned debate and the use of evidence

Nothing thinly veiled Greg - straight up racist and nationalistic flag waver... nothing about nazi or fascist though. Just an ugly racist viewpoint pretending to care about sustainability and population growth. About which you know or care nothing, Greg.

What do you understand by "tipping point" Greg?

Ah Frosty Wooldridge!

Excellent source - a ratbag anti-immigration activist from the USA ....

Have a look at that reference above folks, it's a hoot, then find out more about him here: http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/winter/the-nativists-0?page=0,18

That explains everything Greg. Deeply racist hate-filled stuff dressed up as environmentalism.

Peter Ormand.

1) You clearly have no comprehension as to what racism really is.

2) You read like one of those Citizens Electoral Council nut jobs. You're not a member are you?

Bruce, the problem is there are a few hundred million more very sad cases in the third world.

But the cold hard fact is that they can't all come to Australia and it is just tough titties.

Increase foreign aid and increase family planning but don't bring them all here and don't allow them to come here illegally.

The currently very small problem Australia has with illegal arrivals is the thin end of a VERY LARGE wedge.

And by the way Bruce have you consulted you grand children as to whether they understand the consequences of a massive increase in refugee intake and whether they are happy about?

Agreed, Australia presumably offers a better life to newcomers than many others. Without consulting my grandchildren I appreciate your view that Australia would become intolerable if all transient peoples could come.
However the majority of Australian people are of other than the indigenous genetic races. Currently >26% were born elsewhere but this is small in comparison with Singapore >40%.http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Products/A6B6AC80B29DE8F3CA2578B000119758?opendocument
So accepting different races is no bad thing which brings me back to my point regarding the use of the wedge. Labor could not be seen to give into the Coalition. Appointing Houston was to blindside the Libs/Nats intransigence to alternatives. That's what I saw anyway from this move. It remains a sad response because it lacks understanding of statelessness.

What concerns me Greg is the implication that we can somehow limit our population here and maintain our comfortable lifestyles while the rest of the planet's population continues to grow.

This idea that we can insulate ourselves from a global catastrophe of overpopulation and the associated resource depletion is fanciful.

How would we do it? How would we become the world's largest gated community? Razor wire the beaches? Shut down the airports?

We are a big island Greg but we live on - and depend on - the planet as a whole. We're all in this together I think.

QUOTE
Greg, the migration program is 190,000 yer annum, why would increasing the refugee program to 20,000 have any consequence on anything at all.
END QUOTE

Our annual immigration intake is already something like 100,000 to many so adding another 20,000 will go a long way towards returning us to Rudd's 'big Australia' agenda.

There are just too many 'human beings' in need of help Marlyn. Far too many for Australia to help. We do not have the water supplies or the soils to sustain a large population.

So you may as well give up your grandiose plans for Australia to be the saviour of the third world.

And by the way Marlyn, my two children, our grand children and future generations of Australians are also human beings.

Have you stopped to consider them with respect to your vision of saving the third world?????????

I'm thinking along the lines of mixomitosis myself - via aerial spray and baby formula - that'll sort 'em for a bit. And I've put all my superannuation into a small company that valiantly presses out razor wire by the kilometer. The future's looking just rosey.

Greg, at present we flush 90% of our water down the toilet or down the drain, our inability to effectively manage our resources is in no way related to the number of people in the country. This incredible inefficiency is poor policy of successive govt's. Our water target is 155L pp, many European countries who dwarf us in their annual rain fall per sq km use less than 50L pp.

We are also moving city borders into our best farmland to create more McMansions for the middle class, but at the same time reduce our food producing capacity. This is very poor policy yet again, particularly when there are large amounts of unused land within our city borders that are not being used. The developers and owners (and yes that includes the govt through VicUrban in my home town) do not want to sell the land until they are happy with the return on their investment. It makes better financial sense to slowly release small patches of land so as not to drive prices down.

I am guessing you are anti carbon tax as well and do not understand that by improving the efficiency of our energy use and increasing the renewable resources we use to create energy means once again each person uses less land in order to support their life.

Our Govts continue to make bad policy in order to keep the masses happy. Change is scary but necessary, people seeking refuge is not a problem that is going to disappear. Sticking our head in the sand, stamping our feet and saying not in our backyard is not going to change the reality of the world. We need intelligent debate to create effective policy to deal with these issues.

"Greg, at present we flush 90% of our water down the toilet or down the drain, our inability to effectively manage our resources is in no way related to the number of people in the country. This incredible inefficiency is poor policy of successive govt's. Our water target is 155L pp, many European countries who dwarf us in their annual rain fall per sq km use less than 50L pp."

Oh Kurt! Perhaps one day you foolish naive people will understand that consumption levels cannot be considered independantly from population levels. Both issues are opposite sides of the same coin.

You can have lower consumption (and ultimately lower living standards and less convenience) and more people or you can have existing consumption and good living standards and less people.

"We are also moving city borders into our best farmland to create more McMansions for the middle class, but at the same time reduce our food producing capacity. This is very poor policy yet again, particularly when there are large amounts of unused land within our city borders that are not being used."

Increased immigration and population will not make that problem easier to solve. And the majority of Australians may not agree with you that living in high rise dog boxes is an acceptible standard of living. I certainly don't!

Make up your mind and let me know. But bare in mind the majority rules and the balance that you are happy with may not be acceptible to the majority of Australians.

This is another issue that does annoy me.

"the majority of Australians may not agree with you that living in high rise dog boxes is an acceptible standard of living. I certainly don't!"

These aren't the only two options. I don't want to live in an apartment either, I quite like having a backyard, although mine is quite small. This is another area where the polarising argument of "I'm not living in a box" vs "we can't release any new land", means that sensible policy can not come to the fore.

Also, we don't have to reduce living conditions, we could actually improve them by using efficient housing systems and modern planning rather than relying on systems from 40 years ago, which we are doing in these new housing estates on top of our best farmland. I have my heater going right now because we build cheap houses with no long term thought, its a waste.

The list of waste is a mile long and its a totally separate argument to the refugee debate. Sustainability and efficiency in design is something I am quite passionate about and I am not naive about what works. I am talking about science fact not science fiction, using practical tools available commercially today not at some mystical point in the future. Even the head of the property council is behind changes to allow better efficiency in building, and he represents the developers, who you would think just want to save money on build costs. The road block is currently a lack of public knowledge and the Govt, not technology, not industry. We can reduce our impact, improve living standards and increase our population; that isn't naive that is fact it just involves a little out of the box thinking.

Just another small point on the population vs ecology debate. If we don't have more people in Australia, they will still be out there in the world using resources and impacting on the planet. Do you really believe we can be immune to that by shutting our borders?

1st rule of posting: never reply to anyone who uses more than 5 question marks at a time. It's like starving a bear, it just makes them salivate more.

"not ad hoc acceptance of anyone who survives the journey by boat"

which you know is not true - to be accepted they have to be assessed as genuine refugees.

Have a look around the world at refugees. Is there some orderly process happening in Syria for example?

What about Pakistan or Iran or Iraq.

Anywhere?

We treat refugees like migrants who can go home to safety if they choose.

Yeah... you know Marilyn, when people respond with that type of vitriol, I am pretty sure it is because they have found what I have said to be disconcertingly logical yet contrary to a long held position of theirs. It's known as cognitive dissonance and it can bring out the worst in people.

I know little about refugee law. I am pretty sure the same cannot be said of this panel of three independent experts and my comment is based on their recommendations. Between you and them, I am quietly confident in deferring to them.

Whether or not they can go home in safety is ultimately irrelevant, and to be perfectly blunt I don't care.

The fact remains that a few hundred million refugees around the world cannot come to Australia for safety. That would make Australia much like that which they seek to escape from and help none of us!

The 20,000 who will be granted citizenship are the thin end of a bl00dy enormous wedge and a line HAS to be draw regardless of the sad stories.

No-one has ever said that a few hundred million people can or would want to come here so you rant is ridiculous.

20,000 - there are 3 million refugees in Pakistan currently being booted out.

Wait till they come here then you might have something to whinge about.

Yeah, because it is moronic.

I am almost 60 and have not been naive since my father started molesting me when I was 7.

Kurt if you arrive on a plane without a passport, bypass the authorities and disappear into the suburbs, then you are an illegal immigrant!

Why do you bleeding hearts make a distinction for people who arrive by boat also without a passport?????

All people who arrive by boat, unanounced and uninvited, ARE illegal immigrants until and if they are found to be genuinely escaping political persecution.

And escaping economic hardship is not the same as escaping persecution.

A large propoertion of illegal boat arrivals

Greg, I was talking about the people who arrive with a passport, legally, then break visa conditions or overstay their visa. The number of people doing this is about 20 times the number of boat arrivals, and as I mentioned the reason that the political wedge was not drawn on this is that it would not be as effective to show anglo backpackers who are working in the cash economy as it was to show muslim men and women. I am not claiming that you are racist, but race is a very effective wedge tactic and has been effective used by both side since Howard.

Australian law actually states that people seeking refuge can arrive by whatever means necessary, boat arrivals are breaking govt policy not the law. Getting angry about it doesn't change that.

Escaping economic hardship is not an acceptable reason to be accepted as a refugee, you keep mentioning this point but I am unsure of it's relevance to this debate. Over 90% of boat arrivals are accepted as refugees, therefore they are not escaping economic hardship, the figures were the same back in the Howard days. Is your argument that our immigration officials are incorrectly accepting individuals without checking their claims for asylum, or that economic hardship is a valid reason to be accepted as a refugee in Australia. Nether of these things are true so I don't understand your argument.

Kurt Foster: "... people dying at sea is a live issue and it needs a solution ...". Assuming we manage to stop people taking the hazardous voyage to Australia, will it solve the problem?
I guess it depends what you believe to be the problem. If it's people coming to Australia, then the answer is yes. If it's people leaving their homelands, then it's no.
People are leaving their homelands and some of them are dying on the way to Australia. If they stop coming to Australia, will they stop leaving their homelands? My guess is they won't. They'll end up dying on the way somewhere else.
All we'll have done is move the problem.

I disagree Kurt. From what I have read thus far on the subject ANYONE arriving in Australia without a valid visa and passport is an illegal immigrant with no exceptions.

You can apply for assylum, but until your claim is processed and approved you remain and illegal immigrant. If you claim is not approved then you are deported as an illegal immigrant.

If on the other hand you enter a recognized UN refugee camp and apply for assylum from there then at no time are you regarded as an illegal immigrant.

So once again you damn bleeding hearts are twisting the facts for your own self interested ends!

I sinecerely doubt he is interested in anything except for external validation of this self-expressed xenophobia and demonstrable prejudices on the topic of asslym seekers. Apart from an interest in abusing anyone who doesn't provide it.

There is a global commons. There is no lifeboat escape possibility for the rich. All nations will have to come to grips with the limits to carrying capacity. Unless measures are taken by the rich to facilitate sustainable development, the continued destruction of humanity's life support systems (and a reduction in biophysical carrying capacity) is virtually guaranteed.

The full quote

"There is a global commons. There is no lifeboat escape possibility for the rich. All nations will have to come to grips with the limits to carrying capacity. Unless measures are taken by the rich to facilitate sustainable development, the continued destruction of humanity's life support systems (and a reduction in biophysical carrying capacity) is virtually guaranteed."

comes from a source you provided

http://dieoff.org/page112.htm

It's meaning is clear. Unilateral action by a single nation to "create a lifeboat" - which si what xenophobic rejection of the assylum seeker issue amounts to - is not an option.

Well that is fine for you, you are not one of the innocent people who would be flogged off to permanent prison in some malaria infested hell hole in the name of stopping someone else from drowning.

Really and truly the complete lack of logic by some drives my hair grey.

Marilyn. Instead of attacking me, why not offer a superior alternative? I would welcome discussion of it.

I am not "happy" with the report by any means.

I could just as easily attack you and argue that you are happy to let people drown in the name of avoiding people being sent to offshore processing.

I suggest you need some balance in your approach

Oh, and for the record, I would support an increase in refugee intake well in excess of what the Panel recommended. I suspect they had an eye to political acceptability though.

Perhaps, instead of criticising any approach that at least improves the outcome for some, we could focus on how we can encourage our fellow Australians to accept, welcome and add to the productive fabric of your society larger numbers of genuine refugees?

Very eloquent as usual Mark. These are much the themes I sought to strike in my comment too. Well said.

Thanks Ben.

It may well prove academic judging by the debate in Parliament right now.

The Greens seem determined to stick to ideological purity - making an illusory perfect solution the enemy of improvement (at least for some). Abbott is clearly demonstrating he has no interest in solutions, only politcal point scoring and fear mongering, by seeking amendments that call for TPVs to come back in and to "tow back the boats" - an idea that has been shown to be dangerous and impractical

Sad :(

For god's sake, again you demand answers from me. It's not my job to answer your stupid questions.

The refugee convention articles 1-34 are legally binding and comprehensively map out the rights of refugees. WE helped write it and were the 6th to adopt it. What is so frigging hard about living up to it?

We choose to have razor wire, we don't have to. No other country in the world whines as incessantly as we do about so few people.

300,000 people have fled Syria, are their neighbours whinging about it?

Marilyn, how, in any, is this verbal assault helpful? Offering to assult me physically?

You attack others for their views and then claim no responsibility for offering any possible alternatives. At the same time you do not aappear to be doing anything personally to address the problem.

I don't think I've made "a suggestion" - just that I would support a greater intake of refugees than has been advocated even by the panel.

I'm also happy to accept genuine refugees however they arrive but have problems with what happens currently with many people risking (and losing) their lives when they come here by boat profiting people smugglers. If you have some positive suggestions as to how we can discourage this I would welcome them.

John Menadu'es suggestion of processing of assylum seekers closer to the source would seem one idea, though it's difficult to see how it could be resourced and we cannot escape the fact that it takes time to assess claims reliably, during which the people have to be somewhere

If you are going to continue to be so hostile you need to think about whether or not such hostility will aid in any way to helping us all come to a better outcome

Well it is time that we with drew from that out dated legal instrument.

It no longer accurately reflects the realities of our present world.

It was written at a time when Australia's population was a small fraction of what it is today.

Back then we were further away from the ecological limits of this continent.

Blindly following this out date convention is to cosign future generations of Australians to the same misery that current refugees are trying to escape from.

Thanks Kurt. Clearly Marilyn is passionate about the matter, which I can respect. But abuse of those with different views isn't helpfull. In any event I had simply said I welcomed an improvement on the current impasse, but recognised it was far from perfect.

It would appear, on my reading, that Marilyn is arguing for no limits and no detention, though she hasn't come out and directly said that. She also has not articulated what refugee intake (taken directly rather than from unauthorised arrivals) we should have and whether or not this total should be adjusted according to the number of unauthorised arrivals are accepted (which is currently the case - something by the way I do not support)

I would be happy to rationally consider such a notion but would point out the following issues

1) It is a view considerably out of step with the apparent views of the Australian population so at the very least would require considerable persuasion to implement - morally outraged haranguing will only deepen opposition.

2) It would need to consider the resources required to process such applications and what suitable forms of management of people (from detention centres through to community placement/detention) would be workable.

3) It would need an increase in the allocation of resources to managing settlement and integration of the additional numbers - which would also need to be managed in the context of the overall migration intake. Though refugess are not migrants the numbers still require management in order for their to be preservation of economic well being and social cohesion. However such a resource allocation decision must be balanced against the very high cost of offshore processing which it would avoid.

4) There would need to be contingency planning in the event of the numbers of un-authorised arrivals exceeding the capacity of any of the resources allocated in items 2 & 3 to cope

All of those points above are complex.

Butwhat would worry me most of all is that if such an approach dramatically increased the numbers travelling here by boats there is a risk of a considerable increase in lives lost at sea.

This report is trying to currently shift the balance of perceived risk so that assylum seekers judge that they are more likely to be successful in their quest to flee persecution and obtain a better life for their children if they follow an orderly process rather than go through people smugglers.

I'm not all that optimistic it will be successful if adopted. But, as I have said, I at least welcome the idea of providing a better outcome for a higher number of refugees than we do at the moment

I don't think our ecological limits will be stretched by a few thousand bloody refugees.

How come you don't use that bullshit over the millions of tourists who come here every year. They don't bring their own water or food.

Well for god's sake how would we cope if we were Pakistan who has been forced by the continually invading west to have Afghans in their millions over the past 34 years.

We could let people apply at our embassies overseas instead of locking them out, that way we save billions, feed millions of people in other countries and save lives.

Everyone wins.

But we are too busy wasting billions on lies and racist bullshit.

Ahmed, if what you are saying is that Australia should stop participating in the USA's misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan etc and indeed stand against them in the UN, then I agree with you.

There are no crooks coming here after blowing up anyone.

You continue to scare monger Greg. Yet again I pose my question. What is your solution to this issue globally? Or, do you believe that if Australia's population remains stagnant we will not be effected by peak oil, peak fish etc?

Kurt, Greg has no solutions. Only faux concerns, ad hominem attacks and rants against the "hordes"

His use of language like "Allow the hordes to flood in and turn Australia into a sess pit" gives the truth to his unexamined racism. Cease to engage with him so he no longer has an excuse for his rants.

Point taken Mark and I'll stop with this final point. I was hoping to draw out his logic, although I am aware there is none in the argument. The many nations with very high population growth rates tend to have larger issues afoot, and creating a strategic policy on population growth would most likely not rate highly on their political agenda.

I am glad that he has finally admitted to being Xenophobic, I am glad to have helped to draw the admission out of him. I think there would be very few if any individuals who take this population / sustainability argument who do not fit into this category.

It is sad that he does try to keep falsely claiming that he cares about the environment. Greg just be honest, you want to keep the darkies out so you and your kids don't need to be scared, your real issue has nothing to do with sustainability. Many of us have shown repeatedly just how ridiculous this small Australia / sustainability argument really is. Also, please do the maths for me, it will be fun to see, and you'd be helping me out, I'm am just a poor simpleton.

Agree Pam. By one in particular who appears to have a "Boiling" obsession about the topic.

But Tireseome Repetitions Of Lateral Lacunae Sentences are like that.

Kurt - stop feeding it! It cannot see any view other than its own and is evidence and logic immune - not to mention off topic