No point of return. This offensive to moral humane principles, the offensive toward international Law is illogical. That is before we mention this governments gamble or disrespect of Australias High Court.

This governments repugnant one-eyed stubborn vision negates alternative diplomatic skill to work in the long-term on the greater picture and harms Australia, the ALP as well as this Prime Minister beyond doubt.

I am dismayed that Prime Minister Gillard would press a policy such as this. "Swapping vulnerable people" as if they are commodities. [Fodder}. I believe Ms Gillard has the wrong end of the stick. Besides people smugglers, the ones that 'may' be rich belong to a wider phenomena, as do border issues of the drugs and sex-trade. Constituting long-term actions that deal with Crime Prevention and Poverty. The thing being ignored here is that War itself has two sides. Wherever there are guns, people caught between the conflict, terror and poverty will flee. Hence the manipulations of both crooks and geopolitics. It is so very nasty.

Clarke and Dawe discuss solutions to the immigration quagmire.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/clarkedawe.htm

That only thing that helps reflect the horror inbetween this mess.

UNHCR Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, Erika Feller, transcript from Sunday Profile.

http://www.abc.net.au/sundayprofile/stories/3314682.htm

http://www.miacat.com/

I like your conclusion, Glenn, a lot more than I like your reasoning.

Leave the ALP Platform out of it, for starters. It’s apropos of nothing: vague, nonbinding, changeable at will. It’s altogether unlike law. ALP members might (or might not) attempt to enforce it on other ALP members, but it’s not enforceable on Australia, full stop. Irrelevant.

You’re on stronger ground with the UN Refugee Convention. The prohibition against refoulement, forbids ‘expelling’ or ‘returning’ people classified as ‘refugees’ to places where ‘life or freedom would be threatened.’ Fair enough, but I think you know quite well that sending people to a bone fide refugee camp does not now, and never has, constituted refoulement. C’mon, that’s a no-brainer. If you don’t like the way Malaysia runs its refugee camps, you can complain to the UNHCR. They’ll tell you to save your breath, as they’re way too busy trying to lift their game in Somalia.

There IS a significant legal distinction between a ‘refugee’ and an ‘asylum-seeker whose claims have yet to be assessed’. Successful asylum-seekers may become refugees; they don’t automatically become citizens. Refugees may be required to live in properly constituted refugee camps pending relocation. Or repatriation, should conditions permit. Asylum-seekers awaiting assessment may properly be detained until their assessment is complete. You may ‘feel’ such detention or deportation constitutes a ‘penalty’, but I’m pretty sure you ‘know’ that, legally, that’s very far from the truth. The Refugee Convention proscribes ‘refoulement’; it doesn’t guarantee resettlement in the country of your choice.

Did anyone ever ‘turn leaky boats back on the high seas’? Never. Several were escorted back to Indonesia. None were abandoned, or put in harm’s way.

Was Nauru so ‘terrible’? That assertion is disrespectful. You want ‘terrible’, look at Somalia. Congo. Haiti. Not the refugee camps, but the places people leave because the refugee camp is better.

Will Gillard’s Malaysian Solution stop people-smuggling? I strongly doubt it.

Does your argument lead us to a better approach? Sorry, not close.

The fact that these people have to be smuggled says it all. This is not relocating people displaced by war or any other thing , it is targeted tourism in the hope of staying. They have passed through several countries to get here, paying their way. Australia should have the right to refuse entry.

The Labor government should return to the pacific solution with both a proven track record that almost completely stopped the human trafficking and complied with the UNHCR Charter.

Refugee supporters are supporting geNOcide.
They want the Third World to flood into White children's homes and only White children's homes.
Nobody is coming up with plans to move millions of non African settlers to Africa, non Asians to Asia or non South Americans to South America and give them special protections and privileges under the law.
Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White children's homes for everybody!
The anti Whites say we shouldn't be "monolithic" White societies anymore because Hitler might come back and kill six million Jews, really, they repeat that assertion like a mantra.
But they only worry that Hitler might come back to a White country so they have to make White children's societies less White in order to ward off his return.
Imagine telling a Nigerian that in order to stop another Jewish holocaust atrocity that he'd have to admit millions of Afghans, Sri Lankans and Iraqis and give them special rights and privileges under the law?
He'd realise immediately that you weren't talking about preventing a Nazi problem but that you were trying to trick him into accepting a final solution to the Nigerian problem.
Refugee advocates aren't acting in the best interests of White Children, our Nigerian man wouldn't accept that treatment of his children so why would a White Australian behave any differently?
Refugee advocates are dishonest, they say they are Anti Racist and want to stop Hitler from coming back, but what they really are is anti White, they use "Racism" as a cover story, and "Anti Racism" is just a code word for Anti White.

Naru was only good as long as no one contested it's legality. Pushing refugees on to New Zealand is a no brainer as well. A Govt; approved system is the only course of action. Abbott is putting Australia at risk of uncontrolled invasive action.