Here's a fact that is relevant to me, regardless of which side of politics you support:
Almost every single refugee that arrives here does so after passing through other countries first. As soon as a refugee transits through 1 or more countries before arriving at a final destination then they have ceased to become a refugee in my eyes and are nothing more than a queue-jumping country shopper, and are deserving of no preferential or priority treatment. A genuine refugee fleeing political or religious persecution does not need to continue a journey through several countries who are UN member states and are signatories to the UNHCR Refugee Convention. Why should we compromise our national security and increase the burden on our economy to assist people who choose to break the legal and moral barriers to live here? I have no problem with admitting people from any country in the world and our country is certainly far richer for the multi-cultural influences we have but I refuse to accept that we must cut corners and lower standards for checking the bona-fides of any immigrant. We owe this to ourselves and our children who will inherit this country after we have passed on. We don't owe Indonesia, Malaysia, PNG, Nauru or any other neighbouring country a damned thing when it comes to looking after our self-interests first.
Playing devil's advocate here but couldn't it be argued based on that argument that displaced Europeans post-WWII should have been re-settled in countries closer to Europe than re-settling them all the way away in Australia, NZ, Canada and the USA where most of them went? In fact it could be argued along similar lines that they should have just remained in Europe given it was now safe with the war and Axis-power occupation of their own countries over.
It makes perfect sense to me why these asylum seekers choose Australia because if I was in their shoes I would choose Australia too. It's the best country on Earth - it's a first world country, a long history of political, social and economical stability, a land of wide open spaces, freedom and opportunity, Oprah called it paradise
, etc ... Through my work I remember being in Germany for a conference and speaking to a colleague from Brazil and he mentioned that people in first-world nations have no comprehension of what it's really like living in a second/third-world nation even one that is classed as stable. This bloke was a professional working and living in Sao Paulo and he had to live in a middle-class suburb surrounded by security walls to constantly protect his home and family. The world is split where 10% of world's population holds onto 90% of the wealth. If you happen to live a country that represents one of the other 90% where large sections of the country are lawless and corruption is rife and you have the financial means to try and get your family out of there to a better life in a first-world nation then why wouldn't you?
Playing devil's advocate once again in answer to these people being "queue jumpers" - Should private health insurance be abolished because an individual with the financial means can pay to get the doctor, treatment and hospital of their choice straight away and jump the 'queue' ahead of a pensioner needing a hip replacement who is forced along with many others to wait years in the queue? A Libertarian would argue the right of the individual should outweigh the dictation of the state and answer in favour of private health insurance. Yet the ability of an individual with the means to pay $$$ to live in the country of their choice is denied.
