Thank you for your thoughtful observations. The issue is not how many so-called refugees we are currently taking, is how many that we will have if we relax border control. The very fact that our border controls are distasteful acts as a deterrent. By all accounts the living standards of people affected by war and famine are abhorrent, but we do not have to become the dumping ground for the world’s problems. It is quite obvious that Australia is a destination of choice, and that people are paying significant sums to get here. Try getting into America on the same basis and see how you get on.

I see that you would rather ignore issues of religious reference. This is a significant issue when fundamentalists of any religious persuasion, including born-again Christians, try to force their fundamentalist views on others. I believe it is beholden on any migrant coming into this country to accept the standards in this country and not try to introduce their own fundamentalist religious preferences. If they don’t want to do that they don’t bother to come. This includes equality of opportunity, regardless of gender or sexual preference. Try exercising the freedoms experience in this country in a repressive Third World fundamentalist environment and see how long you last.

Anybody who forces their way into this country, either as a boat person or overstaying a visa are needs to be treated swiftly. Unfortunately there are so many loop holes in our legal system that can be exploited by diligent opponents of government policy that it is absolutely necessary to deny the illegal migrants access to our legal system. This is a harsh truths and a reflection of manipulation of the legal system by refugee advocates.

Just remember that while you are maintaining your high standard of living, it is only because of the migration barriers that this country maintains. Anybody desirous of the Third World living standards through open borders do not have to drag us down to that level. It would be much easier for these advocates to migrate to a Third World country. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

8. Number of people who sought asylum in Australia in 2008 - 4750
% who sought asylum that came by plane 97.3%b n
Number who arrived by boat 171 (2.7%)

9. Number of asylum seekers Australia has per 1000 people who reside here 0.2 per 1000

About 1700 asylum seekers came by boat this year to Australia
Italy had 36 000 arrivals, USA - 49 000 in 2008, Canada 36.900., France 35 000, and Britain 30 500 .

THE REASON for these large increases is not because they got ‘soft’ but because of the violence in the countries like Iraq, Afghanistan Somalia, Sudan and Sri Lanka. An increase in the number and intensity of worldwide ‘push factors’ has forced many from their homes.

10. It is illegal for the Australian Government to deny people seeking asylum to be prevented from doing so
11. Australian government is dumping it’s responsibility on Indonesia, the country that has not even a signatory to the Refugee Convention

I also understand that the blatant statement by some members of the government that there are milions refugees all over the world and in refugee camps is not accurate. People who do remain in refugee camps very often do not seek asylum. They hope to return home some day.
Greg Angelo
Have you never heard about Iraqi (refugees) scientists and doctors working for the Australian government??
And I would rather ignore your comments on religious preferences.

We already have water shortages with cities stealing water from our food production and high cost of rents and houses are due to supply and demand which is fuelled by the larger intake of migrants lately.

Also immigration added 58p to Britain’s economy per migrant on a recent study by their House of Lords whereas their public had been told like us that migrants added billions to the economy. Maybe we should have a study of this done here but that may not suit the left.

Lastly the fact we could only dredge up $30 a week for an unmarried person over 65 and nothing for a married person on the base pension indicates we are not such a wealthy country as we cannot look after our own well enough and they actually did work and pay their taxes to bring us to this point.

Of the several billion people living in the Third World, migration to Australia would provide enormous benefits if the influx did not reduce our living standards to Third World status. How many hundreds of millions of migrants you want? Every country in the world controls its borders and it has nothing to do with racism. The racism card is easily played even if it can’t be substantiated. It is fundamental self interest which is the primary basis for most Australian’s concern.

I agree that Rudd’s policy is a shambles but that’s because he lied to the Australian population on the presumption that relaxation of border controls would not result in an influx of queue jumping migrants. Evidence has proved him wrong. The boat people however are the”tip of the iceberg”. The bigger problem is the tens of thousands of visa overstayers and students in shonky training colleges who are migrating illegally and taking places that might otherwise be available to genuine refugees.

If we want to have increased migration, and a quota of refugees, we should have some selection criteria. Social compatibility would be one critical parameter. This has nothing to do with racism.

Followers of Judaism have maintained a separate social existence in our community for generations, a process maintained on the basis of mutual respect and substantially common social values. Our recent experience with Islamic extremists in this country would indicate that it is not racism that is the problem but religious fundamentalism. Islamic fundamentalism denies equality of opportunity for women, education for women, and in some instances the murder of unbelievers. Sharia courts treat women and unbelievers as lesser beings from the perspective of justice. Western civilisation has moved beyond this type of social and gender differentiation, and I have no desire to import any more of this fundamentalist threat into our country. Similarly Tamil Tiger terrorists are another potential threat and should not be included in our country. This is not racism. This is self protection.

Self screening through the agency of people smuggling is not the answer. Queue jumping in any system involving quantitative controls is inequitable. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees in United Nations camps who have no chance of getting to Australia while well resourced queue jumpers buy their way in. Why are Tamil separatists choosing to cross the Indian Ocean rather than the short trip to Tamil Naidu? There is one answer only, derived directly from games theory, that the risk return payoff is significantly better in Australia with our generous social welfare system. True refugees would take a shorter trip and not expose their children to unnecessary risk.

Fundamentally Australians are selfish individuals. They choose to maintain their high standard of living through the maintenance of border controls. They share of this desire with most of the G 20 nations. I do not wish to change with this situation along with the majority of Australians.

The eventual outcome of the proposals postulated by the Prof and his followers would be a significant reduction in our standard of living. Overcrowding, water shortages, reduction in the quantity and quality of food are three examples. I have a better suggestion. To those who want to share their living standard with the Third World, I would suggest that they congregate in small enclaves, reduced the food water and resources consumption, and send the consequential financial surplus to Third World countries where it can do a lot of good. On this basis they would be making a noble sacrifice and not dragging me with them. Is easy to pontificate about principles when you are not making the sacrifice yourselves. Be prepared to put your money where your mouth is.

I find myself in complete agreement with Professor Davidson. I have had some (not very recent) experience in migration law and policy, and I am, like most decent Australians, deeply troubled by the conflicting arguments and considerations. But the simple statements of obvious truth and unarguable principle spelt out by Professor Davidson are a welcome shaft of sunlight on the whole tangled and tragic mess.

I voted and will continue to vote for Kevin Rudd, but my view is that he has badly let down his party, many of his supporters and Australia as a whole by what I regard as a badly shambolic approach to this issue.