Refuge or subterfuge

Having some time to waste on Sunday I made the unusual decision to read through the tortuous Sunday Mail to which my wife subscribes purely for the TV magazine (they threw in the Saturday newspaper for free, probably can't give it away anywhere else). Unusual in that the Advertiser brand is just about the most pathetic newspaper franchise I have ever had the misfortune of being exposed to. It is one dimensional and features some of the most jaundiced propaganda masquerading as journalism that I have ever read . Its overall content standards could be compared unfavourably with the gossip magazines from the supermarket checkout stands (tabloid format = tabloid content?).
On this occasion however I noticed an article penned by the honourable Nick Xenophon on the refugee crisis: "Lets unite on refugees". And although I have disagreed with Xenophon's philosophy at times, it is the mans commitment, tireless work ethic and his genuineness that gives me pause on my own stance on the issue in order to give ear to his, and is that not the aim of any good polly?

The piece begins with a plea for bipartisanship, i.e. that the issue is neither left nor right wing and whilst I agree with the sentiment I think it is somewhat disingenuous for the simple reason that very few issues in life are simply black or white.
He then puts forward the argument that these people are not queue jumpers (in his opinion; I wonder if those in the refugee camps were asked what they would say?), nor are they arriving in unsupportable numbers (yet), that the latest incident is a tragedy (unarguable) and that we need 'sensible policies' to deal with the influx, specifically ones that deter the boats from arriving. No argument from me on the latter part of the argument.

He then comments on the statistic that the boat people only make up 2 % of the refugee intake.
I have read differing stats on that but for the sake of argument let us assume this to be true, however it is not the percentage intake which is potentially disturbing but rather it is the way that many, perhaps most of these 'refugees' are said to be arriving undocumented. In fact it has been reported that many deliberately discard their documentation just prior to arrival in Australia. What better way to infiltrate terrorists (even bludging the welfare system is seen by the jihadists as weakening the 'enemy') into this country, people who by the way, think nothing about losing their lives in pursuit of the cause, which renders the argument that because these people risk life and limb they should afforded special consideration meaningless. And before any readers who view this blog accuse me of fear-mongering re: the goal of terrorism within Australia, consider if you will some of the stated aims behind the Hizb ut-Tahrir rally in Sydney during July 2010:

HT is dedicated to the creation of a single Islamic state, or caliphate, that ‘will reach the whole world and the rule of the Muslims will reach as far as the day and night’. It believes there is a timeless conflict that governs relations between Muslims and ‘unbelievers’, a conflict it encourages.. 

His contention that the opposition's sloganeering is designed merely to impress the voters rather than actually being viable is patently ridiculous given that John Howard reduced the flow to three boats per year.
His use of the Vietnam immigration 'bipartisan' experience as exemplar for the rightness of his argument should be reprised in the light of recent revelations about massive drug and gang related travesties attributed to Vietnamese criminal organisations.
Xenophon then embraces the tried and true method of adopting the virtuous 'high ground' (even quoting his 'good friend' Tim Costello) and attempts an emotional coup de grace with: "...and just start thinking about right and wrong". Although this 'moral uppercut' is intended to end the argument, I fear that just as in his peroration it strikes a disingenuous note because the issues at stake are not; 'either / or', but 'both / and'!

For example; the decisions I make about who I allow through my front door are most definitely influenced by my moral worldview (i.e. right and wrong), but equally so it has plenty to do with what that person is bringing into my house (would you allow an aggressively armed person to sit at your dinner table?) and who they are...therefore to question these aspects of the refugees is not to be immoral, xenophobic or fear-mongering; au contraire, it is being intelligently careful, a gatekeeper if you wish, and have we not elected our officials to do just that, act as our gatekeepers ?

Some commentators have rightly pointed out, that many of these 'refugees' have travelled vast distances, through numerous fairly stable countries, many of whom share their values, why then are they so fixated on Australia? perhaps the freebies, freedoms and culture of Australians appeals to them, fair enough, but if the circumstances they are escaping are so deleterious, surely to spend some time being processed in an intern camp shouldn't be too much of an ask for the genuine escapee...one would think they would be eternally grateful (rather than rioting over air-conditioning, a perk that many Aussies do not enjoy).
Sorry Nick, although I agree with one of your points (deterrence) the main gist of your argument has not convinced me to accept without reserve the claims of bleeding hearts and anarchists who scream that to be rational is to be immoral.

I agree with unity; but unity for the sake of unity is form over substance.

UPDATE

"The vast majority of those arriving by boat are being granted residency. The approval rate is roughly twice that of applicants processed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)… The High Commissioner for Refugees has warned that large numbers claiming asylum status in Australia are not refugees…"