D Refugee: a person who "owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country" [according to the UNHCR 1951 Convention on Refugees (www.unhcr.ch)]

Of course this is interpreted by everyone in their own way for their own interests. Courts in Australia have interpreted this to include women who have been sexually harassed at their work-places. This is not an interpretation that most voters would make, but the judiciary does not answer to the voters.

Many countries who are part of the UNHCR resettlement program are debating the problem of how to handle the refugee situation - some want the intake increased, some want it decreased.

The UNHCR also asserts that 'sovereignty is never absolute' - that is, that a country has an obligation to accept refugees who spill over their border. This is consistent with the United Nations view that they are a global government, whose power overrides national sovereignty.

Some people feel that a majority of citizens within a country have a right to force their fellow citizens to pay taxes for people who arrive. Others do not.

Most people however, don't have a problem with others helping refugees. If its their money, they can do what they want with it.

There is a real tension here between government control and personal choice. Some people believe they should be allowed to bring whoever they want onto their own private property. Others believe that no-one has the right to bring other people into the country who will be a welfare burden on them.

A good compromise is

Allow individuals to sponsor refugees if they want to. Anyone could sponsor refugees, as long as they took responsibility for them - to feed them, house them, pay for their medical and educational needs, and pay any debts and liabilities incurred by them. This of course would include cost in deportation if the refugee committed any crimes, and the compensation for any crimes which were committed.

While it may seem a little harsh to 'make people pay for the actions of others', this cuts both ways. The alternative is to make the victim of a crime pay for the actions of the sponsor's choice in bringing a refugee into the country. Clearly compensation can never be complete, but it gives a good approximation. Potential sponsors might be reminded that (at current levels) punching a schoolboy in the face requires a compensation of $AU1M in Australia.

Clearly such privately sponsored refugees would not be eligible for citizenship.

If people genuinely felt that these people would not be a burden, they shouldn't have a problem agreeing to this. Australia could replace its 12,000pa quota with the private-sponsorship scheme immediately, and all the people in detention centers could be released as soon as they found sponsors.

See