QF94,
I'll start by saying that I generally respect your posts. Second, personally I have no axe to grind here - there are good and bad points re refugees and immigration more generally.
However I respectfully submit that a few of your points here are simply incorrect and cannot stand unchallenged.
1.
Let's look at what has accompanied "refugees" over the last 40 years.
Home inavasions
Gang warfare (not talking traditional bikies, as they kept their grievances between themselves)
Drive-by shootings
Arms deals
Drug dealing
It does not follow that only refugees have brought these blights. I would suggest that the vast majority of refugees (and immigrants) are law-abiding (citizens, as many become) who are simply seeking to provide for their families and educate their kids.
However, I would also suggest that many of the perpetrators of the above are not refugees, but 'legal' immigrants - plus a good smattering of Aussies of more Northern European extraction:
1. Terry Clark (Mr Asia) was a (white Anglo-Saxon) Kiwi;
2. Bikie gangs have also shown to be heavily invovled in the drug trade;
3. As for bikie gangs keeping things between themselves, all I'll say is "Viking Tavern" and "Qantas Sydney domestic terminal";
4. Very few (if any) "Islanders", for example, come to Australia as refugees.
2.
When they arrive on our shores, as illegally as they do, they should not only be kissing the soil of this country, but also our backsides for reaching here and forcing us to give them assylum.
I think most do - right from those who came on various sailing ships (though they weren't called 'refugees' then), to the hundreds of thousands who came post-1945, to the Viets and Cambodians. Sure, some don't, but you're unfairly tarring an innocent majority.
3.
It seems to be only a small percentage of people fleeing thier countries of origin. The masses must seem to think it's still OK to stay. Those fleeing must have done something for the government or military to want them so bad.
"The masses" might not have the wherewithall to be able to fund an escape, or perhaps the courage to risk life & limb on a perilous journey. Or, maybe they are members of the "right" ethnic or linguistic group in their country and therefore feel no need to leave.
On the other hand, "those fleeing" may have simply wanted to express their opinion; maybe vote for their government
; or perhaps their crime / thing they "must have done" was to have been born with the wrong skin / surname / religion.
Perhaps next time you get a cappuccino from that long-established Italian cafe, or go to the local green-grocer run by Con or Costas, or a Viet take-away that's been there for 20 years, you might like to take a moment and ask what motivated the proprietor to up-sticks and come to God's own country all those years ago.
"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" doesn't really work.