Refugees and illegals are they our fault

The biggest problem I have with arguments on what to do with refugees isn't based on idealism or ideology but rather pragmatics.

The fundamental flaw with the ' humane argument ' is that it assumes that people are just waiting to learn the truth about the appalling state of refugees to change their minds. That simply isn't true.

If the people really wanted to change the system they would.

There is no logical/ objective doubt that political systems are corrupted by irrationality , greed, self interest , power externalities and the totally artificial (naive ) belief that Political parties can "represent" a democratic/ or mass choice. The choices presented are 'closed'. A bit like mandating a choice between everyone getting flogging by whip or a cane for Minor breaches of laws/ by laws etc.

Arguments can be made for either option but what isn't up for choice are other alternatives. All choices are marketed between and by extremes.

e.g. in Australia's case Open slather or pacific solution ( unlimited refugees and we are talking about millions or so few it makes no appreciable difference to the refugee problem). There are comparable simplistic choices in almost every other country too.

I would dispute emphatically that the anti refugee is solely from the non suburban voters rather while the non suburban voters may have a disproportionate number of xenophobes/ right wingers, one shouldn't assume that the suburban or left leaning voters are really any different. One only needs to look at the fact that non suburban voters are a minority of districts/ electorates and therefore representatives.

Simply put, we the everyday voter support (by our inaction, practical indifference) the limited or simplicity of choice, 2 sides infer.

In reality open slather is not possible with the current human propensity for tribal identity and self interest. i.e. it is unlikely to be accepted before a fundamental change in Homo sapiens generally.

The real question then come down to achieving a LESS INhumane solution. Most social change happens slowly and the evolutionary change to our hard-wired (genetic) “human nature” is far, far slower.

I would suggest that such change would need to have a far stronger personal pay-off to engender it.

The first issue is to prevent ( in Australia)the boats and the associated loss of life and the merchants of death (the people smugglers).

In that perspective the question should be as the report suggests a suite of solutions.

Ask yourselves if you were a refugee in Indonesia your choices were paying out the very last of your money for a trip to a remote island with the probability of eventually getting status in Australia. OR spending the money only to be returned to a refugee camp in Asia with virtually NO chance at migrating to Aust . Wouldn't you see the futility in the latter?

Let's be clear the Malaysian 'solution' (sic)was fatally flawed because the Malaysian don't want them either and naturally want a net reduction. This of course acknowledges the appalling conditions that meet the refugees in the camps.

And there is the second half of the suite of actions.

Of course the best option is reduce the push factors in the refugees' country of origin.

And there we in the West run into our own misdeeds in our want (as opposed needs ) for these countries' resources... but that is another topic.

Therefore, this highlights my stance that the "debate" (sic) as it is being run are so ideological and superficial as to be nearly preaching to the converted a minority of voters regardless of how well presented.