< The only humanistic and legally viable solution to the refugee crisis is to adopt a clear two-pronged approach. The first limb is to considerably increase the number of off-shore refugees we absorb. The second part is to deny refugee eligibility to people who arrive in Australia without pre-existing refugee status. >

Absolutely, Mirko. This has been my argument for years.

< This would end precarious voyages to our shores and mandatory detention. At the same time, it would result in enormous public revenue savings. >

Yes.

< The additional cost of settling the larger number of refugees would be a fraction of the current cost of the misery that is the refugee industry. >

Yep.

< We should increase our intake of displaced people to say 10% of total migration numbers. This would mean that our total humanitarian intake would be approximately 30,000 per year – more than double the current quota of 13,750. >

I differ somewhat regarding numbers. Our total immigration intake should be in the order of 30 000 per annum, or whatever net zero immigration turns out to be. Within this, the main category should be refugees, being something in the order of twice as many as we currently take.

< Ideally, Australia should absorb even more than 30,000 refugees annually. Our abundant resources and infrastructure could accommodate a massive increase in humanitarian arrivals. >

This is where I strongly disagree. We need to stabilise our population.

< The other part of the solution requires us to disentitle asylum seekers who come by boat from refugee eligibility. >

Yes.

I agree with everything that you have written regarding onshore asylum seekers.

Good article

*The Convention was never intended to apply to migrants who roll out a world map and strategically plot which of the 140 countries that have signed the Convention they think will best advance their economic prosperity.*

Exactly! I've made this point over and over again on OLO.
A good article.

Much of this article seems to be founded in the author's subjective moral judgement of those who arrive by boat.

For example : thrusting, wanton, temerity to command our attention, imposing nature, are just some of the pejorative terms used to define the personalities and natures of boat arrivals.

There is also an assumption that if people have money to pay for their passage, they are not fleeing persecution, etc., as defined by the Refugee Convention. I find this assumption entirely untenable.

While the author suggests that we look to only the spirit of the Convention, I doubt this will be understood by those seeking asylum who come to Australia because we are signatories, and in that capacity, have extended an invitation to those fleeing persecution, regardless of how they arrive.

It is always extremely dangerous for one group to decide to observe only the spirit of a law.

Obviously, the only way to stop the boats is to withdraw from the Refugee Convention.

In all conscience those such as this author, if they are to be consistent and coherent, have no choice but to take political action that will ultimately bring about this withdrawal, or at least give it their best shot.

Cherry picking the Convention is not a viable solution. Asylum seekers cannot be expected to know that we have signed the Convention, but that we will abide by it only under certain conditions.

We are in or we are out.

Unless the author and those who share his views have the political will to take this stand against our voluntarily incurred international legal obligations, they probably ought to accept that we are a country that accepts asylum seekers no matter how they arrive, and deal with it.

Oh, I'm sorry I forgot there is another option.

If you don't like how we do things in this country you can always leave.

There are countries who are not signatories to the convention.

The arguments put in this article all sound so familiar; and historic. I never hear one mention or comparison to the Vietnamese boat people arrivals of the 1970’s.

A look back in history from today would do us all well. We have today a thriving Vietnamese community largely built on boat people arrivals: A group that in the most part spoke no English and confined themselves to satellite enclaves in Capital cities, but most significantly were fleeing from the horrors of a war of the Wests making.

What we continually witness is the failure of our respective Governments to contain their insatiable appetite for war mongering. Where our cries of “unfair” should be directed are towards disastrous gung-ho foreign policies which involve Australia in non-winnable wars with outcomes and consequences that result in a constant supply of refugees fleeing our bombs and their destruction.

Australia has a responsibility to take all arrivals of refugees from our war zones, whatever means they may use to get here is unimportant. We need to “put up and shut up” in view of the facts.

*If you don't like how we do things in this country you can always leave.*

That sounds a teensy weensy bit arrogant to me, briar rose.

For how we do things regarding boat people asylum seekers, has
been one continuing wasteful, hugely expensive, ongoing, unfair
debacle, year after year after year.

Those people running the present show, have little to be proud of.

Just ask the punters, few are impressed.

Please explain to me, why you have no qualms about letting those
with money jump to the front of the queue, whilst those who don't
have two bob, just have to lump it.

Fairness hardly comes into the equation.

Its time that the UN Convention was updated, to plug the many
loopholes which presently exist.