The original Nazi bomb complaint was about people who knew, or knew and pretended not to know, that a bad thing was happening in Germany, and who did nothing. That is a sin of *inaction*. Later this was unconvincingly 'clarified' by claiming that the Nazi reference was only incidental.

Above I added to the reasons why this is a bad comparison. Not only was it over the top, but it ignores other far more serious sins of omission. I am not newly raising a Nazi comparison, just pointing out again how bad was the original comparison. No hypocrisy here, sorry.

A distinction was claimed about sins of omission versus deliberate acts. Moral philosophers generally regard such distinctions with scepticism. Kant's Categorical Imperative ("Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.") makes no distinction between acts and omissions. Thus he gives as an example of immorality "failing to cultivate one's talents". And again in respect of the Germans, few of them took part in the atrocities in an active way. Hitler was not elected (with a minority vote) on an explicit platform of doing what he did. In fact the Nazis went to considerable lengths to keep their intentions secret. 

In the absence of a clearly articulated and worked out alternate policy, and given that arguably the current refugee policy is humane (by discouraging people from risking their lives) you would be hard pressed to argue that the average Australian is actively guilty of immoral acts in respect of refugee policy. The state of the third world and the attendant hunger and disease are also in part the result of active acts by western powers. So I don't see any pertinent distinction here.

The complaint of hypocrisy also fails on another level. Again we see the core issue being avoided, in a fog of distraction and overblown moralizing. 

The issue was the expression of a high degree of moral fervour against Australia's current refugee policy, and at the same time a curious reluctance to articulate an alternate policy and to describe the consequences of that alternate policy. Surely, I asked, if you really want a better policy you should tell people about it. The vague hand waving statements that our policy should be more "humane" fall far short of what is needed. Even when I suggested a possible change to policy there was no interest at all. Not what you would expect for such a morally critical issue.

I conclude that  the displays of moral fervour do not ring true. 

As mentioned before, people perform bogus moral pontifications for all sorts of well-known reasons. 

* As status displays (eg I am a superior being to the ignorant rednecks who want to bring back the death penalty), 

* As displays of group affiliation (eg Look at all those horrible ALP people being charged with corruption. Isn't it terrible! [Said by one Liberal party member to another.]), 

* As diversions (eg I am just outraged about X, so please think about that rather than Y), 

* To incite hatred against various people (eg the "threat narrative" concept from Typhon Blue, often used eg against various unfavoured minorities eg the 'threat' to virtuous white women from negro rapists in earlier times), 

* To make an expression of a fashionable opinion seem more important and significant than it otherwise would (eg the various ebbs and flows of opinion as to the marriages we approve of and don't approve of eg we currently regard the marriage of 15 year old women - which was once common - as immoral, while not allowing gay marriage is also currently seen as immoral by most people). 

Perhaps the explanation is one of these, or something else.

In any case my attempts to draw these people out about their alternative proposals have ended in failure.