So Ross James what are you suggesting?

So Marilyn, where are they getting their heads cut off in Indonesia? 100% dead in Afghanistan??? Where are your stats to back that up?

Link the evidence Marilyn. Where's your proof?

I think that asylum advocates run the risk of demonising of other nationalities in their eagerness to establish their credentials as a latter day Oscar Schindler.

I have known a lot of Sinhalese and always been impressed with their humour, friendliness and politeness. Having a terrorist campaign in your midst creates enormous strains, as security forces feel the obligation to protect the innocent, so I can't rule a complete lack of abuses (and if there is one human rights abuse that the human rights community seems remarkably complacent about, it is the right of soldiers and police not to be shot, blown up or beheaded).
But is it really fair to characterise Sri Lanka as the land of white vans?

"This is the question that we should fear as our govt and opposition convince the masses that asylum seekers are not human like us and deserve less protection than our farm animals."

I think you know where you can shove your vile accusations - the government is trying to find a workable humane solution so they can depoliticise the issue. The Greens are refusing to acknowledge the realities of rapidly increasing numbers and pull factors; and non-genuine 'refugees' who try to abuse the system. And by doing so they make any solution impossible except for Labour to move to the Coalition position.

BTW I am not saying all asylum seekers are non-genuine refugees. I am saying some of them are.

But obviously the only people who are worried about the rapidly increasing numbers are just racist bogans - right? That is just offensive nonsense.

There are 40 million displaced people in the world. There are 600 000 asylum seekers in Germany. There are 2 billion people in the world who would rather have an Australian standard of living than the one they have in their own country.

Giving 70% of the people who arrive here permanent residency is a definite pull factor and if you deny it you are being naive.

Peter, you are allowing your loathing of the right wing pundits in Australia to overcome your usually reasoned analysis and are degenerating into a mirror image of them. Please get a grip. :)

You're right John.

I do loathe bigots and brutes. I do not find selfishness attractive. I am deeply saddened that this country of immigrants and refugees (of one sort or another) should turn its back on desperate people and worse - do what I outline above to them.

I am appalled that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship calls the kids behind razor wire "clients". That folks can be imprisoned indefinitely based on an anonymous and undisclosed ASIO report which cannot be appealed. I am deeply saddened that we have joined the ranks of those countries who deny basic human rights to the vulnerable and "outsiders".

I am disappointed that we have become so self-centred, parochial and frightened that we would regard this trickle as a flood. That our governments' responses have been so punitive and inept. That we "send messages" by gaoling children.

It looks like we have forgotten or discarded the notion of charity - the responsibility to care... that we take our morality from the wrong side of Oliver Twist, that we have joined forced with the Beadle - some revised 1984 written by Charles Dickens.

It will pass this period eventually. If for no other reason that it will not solve anything and that people will keep trying to escape persecution and protect their children.

So yes I will "get a grip". I will not spew out my anger. I will not point to the truth in the vain hope that this might change.

I must realise that Australians are not who I thought they were, nor who they pretend to be. And I will think less of us all.

As a start I'd reckon that the Houston proposal looks like a decent start 20,000 rising to 25,000 pa. Personally I'd make it more but given the political level of most Australians and their neurotic anxieties, this is probably as many as we can take in the immediate future.

However it is far more important for us to firstly increase our own intake and get something like a moving queue and to lobby other western countries to increase their own intakes.

We won't solve this alone - never could... it's a drop in the ocean.

We could do it the other way of course and significantly ramp up the support we give UNHCR camps and facilities in Africa Asia and the Middle East, at least helping to make life more tolerable and perhaps some education for the kids.

We should certainly give a very high priority to resettling folks from war zones in which we've played a role.

Not all of that 42 million are looking for permanent settlement in the west incidentally. Can't recall the numbers at the moment but a substantial portion are temporarily in camps because of wars and famines and will eventually return home - such as it is.

Peter, I agree with taking more in through the UNHCR and 20,000 plus annually is probably the upper limit due to the politics of it all. We should take more, but yo be realistic, it is just a drop in the ocean (or less than 1/20th of 1%).
I also think Bob Carr's comment that we could have 180,000 per year arriving via people smugglers if we do nothing is quiet realistic. If the rate of drownings stayed the same at approx 4% the outcome would be tragic (and politically destructive for which ever party was blamed for it).
The only two options in this debate seem to be either the cruel option of deterrence (The Houston recommendations) or the option, in the long term, of very large uncontrolled migration. Not much of a choice as both choices feature either cruelty on land or deaths at sea.

Not necessarily Steve, there is a third way - and we've done iot before successfully.

Invest some resources in processing facilities adjacent to countries of origin, process folks there and fly them in. It's how we did it post WW2 and after the Fall of Saigon.

Have a google up John Menadue's proposals on refugees - he was the head of immigration and oversaw the program. Gets us a moving queue and avoids the risk of people smuggling in leaky boats.

This problem will not just go away - and I suspect if the global warming business is half right we'll be seeing many many more people on the move around the world. So we'd better start working out how to deal with it. Or invest all our super in razor wire.

"A flood"???? Seriously?

Now I know that you have far more expertise when it comes to "economic refugees" than most John. As such I'd reckon you'd be an ideal candidate for a slot as an "ambassador of ill-will" - despatched to far flung parts to show the folks that we just hate 'em and that the days of just turning up and getting a job are long gone.

An eloquent exercise in Australia's new forte - hypocrisy and self-interest. A perfect representative.

Well it appears that five years after getting residency 84 per cent of Hazaras will still be unemployed so I am not sure what point you are making. I note in the days of temporary protection visas they were highly prized as workers in country slaughter houses. I note that even our immigration minister has stated if numbers continue not only will our humanitarian quota be filled but that for all immigration.

"Five years after getting residency 84 per cent of Hazaras will still be unemployed." I would like a reference for that one mate. I am not aware of government sources for data of this kind. Or are you speaking anecdotally? You know what they say: 84% of statsitics quoted in argument ad made up. The other 13% are inaccurate...

I suggest you check DEIR website. I also note that the ambush of Peter Reith on the SBS reality TV show was by a Hazara who actually looked like one rather than the one interviewed in Australia and he was still alive despite having returned to Afghanistan voluntarily ten or more years ago, but he had changed his name for safety. Strange if he is subject to oppression because of his race he didn;t try and disguise that but if it was a personal vendetta he was avoiding it would have made sense.

John, do dry up.

Nothing Australia has done since 2008 has been the reason for asylum seekers to arrive here.

There were a few trifling matters that happened in late 2008 and early 2009, perhaps you could read all about them somewhere instead of hiding you head where the sun doesn't shine.

1. an increase in sectarian violence in Iraq resulting from the US surge of soldiers and attacks. Christians are now the main groups fleeing Iraq
2 a dodgy election in Iran that caused tens of thousands to flee brutal repression of democracy campaigners.
3. the taliban war and ethnich genocide of hazara spread across Pakistan and Afghanistan which is more dangerous now than 11 years ago.
4. 40,000 or so civilians murdered, thousands raped, 300,000 interned and 11,000 or so disappeared in the Tamil areas of Sri Lanka - 140,000 were refugees in 2009 alone.

Our only contribution to these atrocities are to send AFP and spies to stop anyone lea ving Pakistan, the navy to stop the tamils and small scale sanctions on Iran while jailing and torturing the ones who get here.

Sandi Logan said this is a campaign to stop families re-uniting and that vile moron Aristotle is the architect of it.

Fancy trying to tell Afghans they should be treated as badly by us as everyone else.

Absolute and total rubbish! You can plot it on a graph, after Tampa and offshore processing illegal boat arrivals (SIEV Suspected Illegal Entry Vessel) dropped to a trickle. Precisely two weeks after Kevin Rudd said he would weaken our stance the arrivals surged and turned to a flood. There are virtually non arriving from Indonesia as opposed to through Indonesia seeking a good life in an industrialized country having gone past or through numerous other countries. A simple question how many of the World's 42 million refugees should we accept and which ones?

John, I notice that in their hast to insult you, neither Marilyn nor Peter have answered your question about how many of the world's dispossessed we should accept. I too, would like to hear a figure.

No Marilyn, it is not a meaningless question. How many refugees can Australia afford to support, both economically and culturally. Unless you have an answer for this, your case collapses - if you allow unrestricted, unlimited entry, Australia would simply turn into one of the countries FROM which these people fled in the first place.

A beating Chis? I reckon the Mordoch press would be running the ads gratis.

Actually Marilyn "we" are the only ones who have the right to decide who enters this country. And we delegate that power to our elected representatives for three years. The Australian parliament is not elected by foreigners.The Australian parliament legislates to satisfy OUR demands, not those of foreigners. And only WE decide the fate of those elected representatives at the end of three years. In other words, yes Marilyn, WE have the right to decide who comes into this country.....

Give them some credit Marilyn. They did increase our refugee intake from refugee camps. Second largest in the world now I think.