The problem with "Border Protection"

Lately one thing has been really irking me, and that's the debate over Australian border protection. This phrase coined by Aus politics is one that, to me, perpetuates what I see as quite an insensitive stance on refugees and asylum seekers.
The term "border protection" connotes that are borders are in danger, that these people are infiltrating our borders illegally (do we still need to clarify that there is nothing illegal about arriving in Australia by boat to seek asylum?) and that they must be some form of terrorists. Many Australians really don't know a lot of the facts regarding asylum seekers in Australia and the corresponding laws. This is no fault of their own, by bringing the issue into politics the average Australian who is just grabbing glimpses of information rambled by politicians on the news would easily become inundated with the flood of conflicting information. When terms such as "illegal boats", "mandatory detention" and "border protection" get thrown in the mix it becomes pretty obvious why so many Australians are so hostile about a topic that they no relatively little about. Some of the misconceptions I have heard come from fellow university students are astonishing, the most common being that almost every right-winged student I have spoken to won't believe me when I say that over 90% of boat arrivals are found to be genuine refugees. There also seems to be a huge gap in the knowledge of what actually constitutes a refugee.
So here's my suggestion, what if we stopped talking about refugees as if they are a threat to our livelihood and we start talking about they compassionately and just occasionally make reference to the hardships they have already endured. I am willing to bet that with a change in language would come a huge cultural shift. After all, I like to believe that people are inherently good and that these acts of hostility are caused by nothing more than a miscommunication of intentions.    

Two of my third grade students from Our Home