the right decision for australia, page-3

The bleeding hearts will no doubt complain and whinge as usual and go on and on about our commitments and what we have signed to under the U.N. re, refugees....and they would be right if these people were refugees in the true sense of the word.
being an economic (ie, leaving a poor country for a better one with all the beneits that go with that) IS NOT being a refugee under U.N. terms..
here are a few definitions of the word (google search)

"an exile who flees for safety"

"Under international law, a refugee is a person who is outside his/her country of nationality or habitual residence; has a well-founded fear of persecution because of his/her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion; and is unable or unwilling to avail himself/herself of the protection of that country, or to return there, for fear of persecution. They are subgroup of the broader category of displaced persons"

"Someone who has left his or her homeland because of fear of persecution".

So, if you were in fear of your life and escaped from your country, wouldn't you go to the nearest country you could possibly get to, to stay alive or out of prison??
For example, if I were a Tamil from Sri Lanka, I would go to India - very large Tamil population there, mostly in the south and close to Sri Lanka too. (As a footnote, S. Lanka is stunning, and the people are lovely; well worth a visit).
Should we help queue jumpers that migrate illegally for economic gain or help and assist those that are truly in fear of their life?
Siouxsie-Sioux.

ps, smiler, re pic, thx..new 1 coming soon:-)