to cumudgeon -- you don't seem to have a clue what you are on about. Probably not a good idea to make uniformed comments.

the refugees in the camp in nauru in 2007 were NEW arrivals, they were the beginning of the new wave we are seeing now with the same people smugglers working now. If the Rudd government hadn't brought them here they would still be sitting in nauru until they were so damaged that we would have to resettle them here anyway. If you don't understand how offshore processing works then you shouldn't be talking about it as if you do! People were only able to access internal appeals on cases - please get some facts, you are part of the problem that we can't have sensible fact based debates in this country. You don't seem to have a clue.. and as others have said, these people were not illegal in any sense of the word

Curmudgeon, I'm guessing you hold refugee advocates in complete contempt, which is fair enough and you're entitled to your opinion. But if you have any respect for this forum as a place where discussion takes place, and where evidence is proffered and considered on its merits, would you at least put up some show of having read the points I made and perhaps address some of them, rather than simply chanting your "illegal immigration" mantra?

I know Howard and his ministers repeated this mantra until their audience's ears bled, for the entire 12 years of their tawdry government, but it doesn't mean they were right. If the asylum seekers' status really HAD been "illegal", wouldn't Howard have deported them back home with a flea in their ear? He wouldn't even have considered processing them. Instead, he (eventually, reluctantly) did process them.

How do you reconcile that with your "illegal" claim? Loathe us if you must, but at least pay us the intellectual respect of addressing our points, or this forum simply becomes a childish "TIZ SO!" "TIZ NOT!" shambles, and hardly worth the effort.

Slobodon Meshirtfront and Kumbalia
Slobodon - your first post was reasonable - although, on reflection, I think I was closer to the legal stuff than you were - the second is abusive and thus ignorable. If you don't like contrary opinions don't come on the site. And there will be contrary opinions.
The camps were not put there to give jobs to social workers, but to enforce Australian laws. If you think the laws should be changed then by all means work to change them, or perhaps think of some kindler, gentler way to enforce them.
To encourage illegal immigration is, in any case, quite dangerous. There have been enough deaths on the high seas without encouraging others to put to sea in whatever they can find just to get here.
The camps achieved their purpose and, while it is unfortunate that there were problems and conditions could have better, a little firmness saved a lot of future problems.
In the meantime the Labor government is left with the problem that a lot of swinging voters do not think like you guys, and would be quite happy to see the camps back. That's the problem you want to focus on. Leave it with you.

The situation resembles that of the drug trade. The public focus seems to be on how to deal with the addicts, yet the cause of the problem is the profit that can be made by the traffickers. Take away the profit and you stop the traffic.

cumudgeon you don't think that the return of 5.2 million refugees to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban had anything to do with the decrease in arrivals? They were going in the other direction until recently! I can only wish for you to experience for yourself some of the 'little firmness' you wish on other humans beings. If it's only little I am sure you won't mind.

Maybe some swinging voters would have a different view if you stopped putting out false information - I think that is abusive. There will always be a deep seated fear of outsiders for politicians to prey on but hopefully some of those people will see through the campaign of lies in the end.

Whether it is or is not legal for people to come to Australia by boats unannounced and uninvited the way they do is not the issue to Australians.

What is important, and what the politicians understand is that the majority of Australians do not like it ..

So anyone who will stop it, will get votes.

Arguing about the semantics of illegality and UN conventions signed up to is not what we do out there, and if the government put to a vote signing UN resolutions - it would be very different, probably sign none of them, why should we?

If the Pacific Solution stops it and gets it off the front page and stops hysterical bleeding hearts from whining about people's rights, who are not Australians .. then great, bring it on.

Like most Australian I have lots on my plate, am busy trying to make a buck, raise a family, have an overseas holiday without any handouts, and then have to listen to these whiners rant on about how it's our duty to take people in.

No it's not, and if you want people to share that responsibility, go whine at Japan or South Korea, or any number of rich nations who take in nobody at all, and that's the way they like it - maybe we would too - ever think of that, that some of the Australians want zero immigration .. what about their rights and opinions?

Most Australians do not give a rat's tail about UN conventions that are signed up to apparently on our behalf and not with our permission by pompous overblown and self important political wannabes.

Let's have a moratorium on immigration for say, 20 years, no one comes in .. let the rest of the world show us how its done, and then we might see whether it is good or bad - it's not like the world population is going to decline, so if we decide after 20 years to let some more people in, fine - we may decide not to and join Japan etc with zero immigration.