But that has little to do with what I've been writing about. I have been explicitly talking about the situation as it is now not at some future date. The question was asked as to why Australia has rejected these people - that's the question I was answering. And the answer is not because they are considered dangerous, but because whether they are dangerous or not is irrelevant to Australia's decision in this situation. They could be Christian Saints and they'd be refused because it is the current policy of the Australian government that no person who attempts to come to Australia by boat without a visa will ever, under any circumstances, be allowed to settle in Australia. No exceptions. So Australia's refusal to accept these people does not indicate they are dangerous. In fact, the decision that they are valid refugees with a valid claim to asylum suggests they are not considered dangerous after extensive screening by Australian authorities.
Australia's policy of not accepting illegal boat arrivals is partly security related, but it's also in large part humanitarian. The sea crossing between Indonesia and Australia is dangerous in a small boat and at times when Australia has not had this policy in place and asylum seekers have decided to take the risk to cross in large numbers, hundreds are known to have drowned in the attempt. Making it clear to these people that there is no point in taking that risk because it will never pay off with entry to Australia saves lives.
You seem to me to be concerned about what might happen in the future, and that's a perfectly valid concern and I agree that once these people are in the United States, monitoring any of them who chose not to be monitored could be extremely difficult, but it's not what I was talking about in my post at #46. It is a simple fact that at the moment, we know where these people are, and the United States is welcome to put any of them through any screening it chooses before deciding whether or not to let them into the United States. And that is what I was talking about. Not something in the future, but the situation as it is now.
Please note - I am not, for a moment, saying that the US should take these people. If I was an American, I'd want my government to refuse them - why take on somebody else's problem? Whether these people are dangerous or not, they are in no way, shape, or form, the responsibility of the United States. But having said that, I think people should understand the facts and what is going on, and I am seeing a lot of misunderstandings about this in the US media when the issue is being discussed, in particular on the question of why Australia won't accept these people. And that is really very simple.
This policy is critical to Australia's security and to keeping innocent people alive. Confusion about it undermines both those things.