Kellie

You must be so irritated that the Abbott Government is exhibiting a low key, professional approach to illegal immigrants who come by boat.

Yes Kellie - we know other countries in the world have to save illegal immigrants who are ripped off by organised criminals called people-smugglers.

I see your About The Author description (below your article) lists you as "a member of the WikiLeaks Party National Council".

You must be joking. Wikileaks imploded before last month's (Australian) Election.

Here's Your Leader's - that resident of the Peruvian Embassy London's attempted electoral funny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg3-b8LZwNc . Its a joke - Assange mimes John Farnharm's voice.

Why do you follow Assange?

Are you also impressed by that dear little would-be trannie, Chelsea Manning, as well?

Planta

"gathering support for a co-operative regional, if not international, approach to dealing with asylum seekers and refugees fairly and above all with humanity?"

Did you notice that Kellie's impassioned call for a solution doesn't actually propose any solution? Presumably "gathering support for a co-operative regional, if not international approach" means the political leaders will get together for a gab-fest in Bali, sipping pina coladas, and then leave the Sir Humphreys of this world to iron out the details.

But hang on. An "international approach to dealing with asylum-seekers" is what we've already got. It's call the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Any new approach must either abnegate, continue or amend that Convention.

If it abnegates it, presumably Kellie will then rail against the inhumanity of it. If it continues, we're back to the original problem.

If it amends it, what should the amendments be, Kellie?

I think Australia should withdraw from the UN Convention. This would in no way restrict Australia's ability to accept refugees. It would allow the government to do what both major parties are trying to do, which is, set the numbers and conditions for onshore refugee applicants, just as they do for offshore refugees, and all non-refugee immigrants. It would enable the hundreds of millions now being wasted on Manus Island to go to better causes. The problem is not "people-smugglers", the problem is the Convention.

But it's precisely the so-called "progressives" [translation: adorers of big government] who are its main supporters.

A rather unimpressive piece of tartuffery Kellie, even if we disregard (which we don't), the blatant dishonesty you display about global warming. (But if it's not dishonest, then where is that peer-reviewed paper proving the existence of the tropospheric hotspot on which the entire theory depends? The personal vilification and appeal to absent authority with which the global warming cult inevitably responds to my call for evidence, only proves the skeptic argument.)

CORRECTION

Mr Assange is a long term resident of the ECUADORIAN Embassy, who has not set foot in Australia for years.

There may be links Kellie, but not of our making.
Moreover, they need to be addressed at origin and can't ever be fixed by a few moving and weakening the whole.
Besides, moving and taking the very beliefs and mental attitudes/traditional enmity with you, that created the problems in the first place, resolves nothing.
Take Shri Lanka as a classic example.
The Tamils live but a few scant miles from one of the largest Tamil populations on earth, yet choose to all but sail halfway around the world in rotting hulks, in the mistaken belief, that soft touch countries like OZ, will keep swallowing their line about war crimes and persecution.
Neither side are blameless, and we simply can't allow war criminals to escape or postpone due justice by migrating, as did so many Nazis.
The war is over and recent northern elections saw an overwhelming result for Tamils.
I'm not sure we have improved anything in Afghanistan with our involvement.
Even so, the only way for that situation to be fixed, is if the oppressed turn on their oppressors, together!
And they simply cannot do that standing alone as small villages, divided by ethnic culture or some such whimsical nonsense!
How can we help those who refuse to help themselves.
Its history repeating itself again and again!
We simply have to stop fighting other nations wars for them.
Why should we get in between armed "warriors" and the virtually helpless women they want to kill, simply because they refused unwanted sexual advances or some such, or because they stood up as singularly courageous individuals, to demand basic human rights!
The money saved by turning back economic migrants, could be redirected at want, which would likely result in much better outcomes and far more friends.
If they want to come, let them seek an invite, and legal entry as properly documented migrants.
That result is hardly likely to improve the financial position of income earning, legalistic asylum seeker advocates, Kellie!
Rhrosty.

When will western liberal IDEOLOGUES publicly concede the links between political and social unrest, economic DAMAGE and climate change, and THE UNCONTROLLED INFLUX OF CULTURALLY UNSUITABLE asylum seekers?

Hmmmm?

Hi Kellie,

you may like to review this article by William Bourke and Dr Jane O'Sullivan in which they identify the key driver of those seeking asylum.
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/overpopulation-drives-boats/

A big part of the problem as the authors above highlight is:
"Refugees are not a major source of Australia’s population growth, yet. You would never know it by listening to the major parties obsessing about asylum seekers, but they are still only around 10 per cent of our total permanent immigration program. The population growth agenda, which both the Coalition and Labor are keen to keep out of public discussion, is mainly about the big end of town’s insatiable appetite for ever more customers, and of course an abundance of cheaper and more compliant labour."

So, what we have for decades is a largely irrelevant distraction being marketed by the major voices as the reason for the growing dissent amongst Australians until as the article continues:
"Having said that, the scale of our humanitarian program must be contained. Without doing so, according to Foreign Minister Bob Carr, we could end up facing over 200,000 unauthorised arrivals per year. This is equivalent to the total size of Australia’s enormous permanent ‘legal’ immigration program. In a climate where government austerity is hurting many of the most vulnerable Australians, they have a right to know that asylum seekers and refugees do not command an open cheque book."

Dr Jane O'Sullivan amongst others have done a lot of research which makes a very strong (perhaps almost watertight case) for the argument that the main focus of our foreign aid should be in providing family planning and education for countries facing these issues while also allowing our population to stabilise to relieve growing pressure here. This focus (far more so than development) would offer a path which is win-win.