Deleted by Hunter

Without questioning your original points I would point out that with the exception of Afghanistan, all those countries are dictatorships. That wouldn't be my aspiration for NZ.

Basically, because we signed a UN declaration stating that we would take people fleeing persecution and allow them to live in our country. You can take some comfort from the fact that all are processed and must be deemed to be 'legitimate' refugees and not a 'threat' to national security before they are allowed to stay and have access to some of the benefits you mention.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think this convention was set up after WWII after the atrocities that happened to the Jews. People wanted to stop that ever happening again so they thought if all 'good' nations agreed to take people who were fleeing persecution (like the Jews had been) we could help to stop persecution. That was the theory. Obviously persecution will never be stopped completely, but I think it's an ethical ideal to aspire towards and that we as a nation should do what we can to help those in need of protection..

The claims made in Hunter's post are substantially false. Australia doesn't issue social security cards. Australia doesn't issue food stamps. Those of us who live in the real world know that entering Australia without a visa does not entitle anyone to a job or a credit car. Hunter says that he know these things ars so but, actually, he is either very stupid or he is lying.

Furthermore, nobody reading Hunter's account of what happens in Australia would be aware from it that illegal entrants may be subject to indefinite detention without charge, and without access to the courts. Even if Hunter is very stupid, it's hard to believe that he is not aware of this.

Given that Hunter apparently knows so little about Australia, I'm not inclined to attach much weight to his claims about what happens in other countries where people cross borders illegally.

Post some evidence in support of the things that you "know" to be true, Hunter, and we might take you bit more seriously.

Hunter's brush may be wide and the strokes a little haphazard but I think that we all can see the picture.

Well, if we take Hunter’s claims at face value, the picture is that a selection of countries which generally have a poor reputation for respecting human rights treat undocumented migrants more harshly than Australia does.

This may be regrettable, but it’s hardly surprising. These countries acquire a reputation for treating people badly by, well, treating people badly.

Apparently in Hunter’s view Australians are “the greatest mugs” because they don’t adopt the human rights standards of North Korea, Saudi Arabia and the like. He doesn’t bother to explain, though, why the stance of these countries is ethically superior to Australia’s.

Is there an ethical point to discuss here? I mean, besides the ethics of the misstatements and misrepresentations contained in Hunter’s original post?

I guess the underlying questions are more or less as follows:

How many refugees from other countries should Australia ethically accept? 100'000/year? None?

How are these number set ethically? As a percentage of current population? or based upon a theoretical figure of the maximum number of people Australia can support minus the projected birth rate?

What is the definition of a refugee? Someone who dislikes the current politics of their birth nation? or someone who is discriminated against by their country of birth? (Every woman in some countries!)

I see this whole issue as very very difficult with no clear answer.

The world is overpopulated and many people in those countries where life is so truly hard, are seeking for a better life elsewhere, and Australia is seen as a great country to live in. And it is.

But we cannot accept everyone who wishes to come to Australia. This would be disastrous (for Australians) in my view. How do we limit/control/manage people coming to our great country? Or is it ethical to aim to distribute all the international wealth of this world (land/water/food etc) equally for every person, not based upon their commercial success/birthright/luck/friends in high places, but on their physical needs? Is the concept of each nation having more or less assets a good thing? Equalisation often has resulted in war. Is war the result of nations retaining their unequal assets as well? Anyway, my musing are a little beyond this thread.

So I see the ethical issue here in this thread to be: What is the ethical entry test to apply to potential refugees?

The united nations does a lot of work in this area and I recommend anyone interested in knowing more visit http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

According to international refugee law, a refugee is someone who seeks refuge in a foreign country because of war and violence, or out of fear of persecution "on account of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group".

So its not just discrimination, its persecution, which is more severe. Persecution is something like 'prolonged hostility and ill treatment'. So I guess if a woman chose not to wear the headscarf and as a result was subjected to 'prolonged hostility and ill treatment' then she would be a legitimate refugee... but that very much depends on the interpretation of the definitions I guess..

The problem I see with the contemporary refugee in the debate is that there are very few facts presented. We need to consider how many migrants arrive in Australia and how many of these migrants are refugees to get some perspective. With that and a whole of other information the government should arrive on a clear figure of how many individuals will be taken as refugees per year.

I think it's not different if they're arriving by boat or not. We should take the ones by boat first before the ones in the camp because they have actually made an effort to get here. But again, only until we have filled our quota then we say no. The quota should be a reasonable amount but not excessive.

It amuses way the govt has chosen to paint the people smugglers as the baddies... in WWII and in the French revolution those that helped the Jews/ royalty escape persecution were hailed as brave heroes.. funny how times change...

arry, As you would expect, I do not necessarily absolutely agree with any laws 100% of the time, nor do all countries accept this international law. The law you refer to is a good attempt and as good as any, but it isn't absolute because at least in this country, the appropriate Minister can override any recommendations for or against. In my view this is a workable system. Flexibility is very important in ethics I believe.

For example, if Australia suffered many years of very low rainfall, I believe it would be ethical for Australia accept no refugees and to adopt a policy to reduce population growth by various means. Overpopulation (of humans) is the elephant in the room that few nations wish to discuss. It's tough to try to discuss the overpopulation of horses in parts of Australia!

I agree this whole issue is very politicized, emotionalized and often dehumanised. Yes, our view of people smugglers depends upon our perspective although I gain the impression based upon no direct facts, that many of the current people smugglers are smuggling people purely for financial gain and not for humanitarian grounds. But I have no evidence for this.

Estimates are that Australia is able to sustain 40- 50 million people. The world is overpopulated, Australia is not.

and long may it stay that way.

There’s no possibility, though, that the number of refugees that come to Australia will lead to overpopulation. You wouldn’t know it from the way the issue is mostly covered in the Australian media, but Australia receives tiny numbers of migrants seeking refugee status compared to many other countries and, because of its geographical isolation, this is always likely to be the case. If the flow of asylum-seekers to Australia increased a hundred-fold from what it is now, this might cause stresses in other areas, but it still wouldn’t make a material difference to the demographics of the Australian population.

Australia is NOT?
Hummn, I am not convinced about that political estimate myself. Sydney, Perth, Brisbane etc. have water shortages and restrictions. Many rivers are drying up, fish stocks are falling, roads are congested, pollution is increasing, infrastructure is not maintained as well as it was, the health system is stressed, every single issue lobby group is demanding more of the budget ...

Suzuki: You know I was shocked to find that you have got a Minister in the Federal Cabinet here (Treasurer Peter Costello) who is encouraging Australians to have more and more children. Why? Because everybody thinks that in order to keep the economy growing forever you have got to have a growing population to keep that economy growing. And so no one ever asks what is the cost of adding more people to Australia, a country as far as I am concerned that is already overpopulated because the demand of each Australian is so great? Journalist: So you are saying Australia is overpopulated? Suzuki: You bet.-David Suzuki - Interview with radio station 6PR, 22 Sept 2006

Unlike plagues of the dark ages or contemporary diseases (which) we do not yet understand, the modern plague of overpopulation is soluble by means we have discovered and with resources we possess. What is lacking is not sufficient knowledge of the solution, but universal consciousness of the gravity of the problem and the education of the billions who are it victims. - Dr. Martin Luther King Jnr

Suzuki is just one person who always presents a fairly radical perspective and Martin Luther King was not referring to Australia in that statement. Australia is approximately the same size as America and the US supports 230 million. Australia actually has more rainfall per year than America on average as well. We always here only one side of this discussion. All estimates are guesswork.

Australia is a young country and it doesn't make sense to me that we would only be able to sustain one tenth of the population of the US. Based on what?

Show me the methodology Suzuki used to arrive at his conclusion and then I may believe it, but I'm not going to just 'trust' him because he's an 'expert'. There are a whole lot of experts who say a whole lot of things, mostly they contradict one another.