My argument is not a purely statistical one, but is supported by the statistics. Yours, however, is not.

Where the theory contradicts the facts, it is generally accepted that the theory is wrong. Any academic would know this.

The example of South Africa shows that as long as the conditions in Australia are better than 90% of the world, there will be significant desire for people to relocate. The main difference between South Africa and Australia, is that the SA border is porous and easy to cross, resulting in thousands crossing every day.

If the border to Australia was as easy to cross, the flood might well be of similar magnitude. The flow is inversely proportional to the difficulty of getting residence, I doubt whether Australia is capable of taking on the entire world's problems.

The excision of the islands is a prime example of where parliamentary law was struck down when it conflicted with common law. You cannot change common law without rewriting the constitution.

Shadow Minister,

My article is an opinion piece about the use of propaganda by politicians and colluding media that works to characterize asylum seekers as illegal and criminal. It’s about changing domestic law, and withdrawing from the Convention. It is about sloganeering like “stop the boats.” I challenged Abbott to rationally explain how that would be achieved, and where. It is about a tame media that do not ask hard questions. I point out that Australia has added no riders to our laws that exclude methods of arrival, or require asylum seekers to queue.

Yet you seem to think I should accept statistical evidence as some kind of answer to the issues I raised. Where is the relevance?

I made no claims about the numbers of boat arrivals. I interrogated the narratives constructed around those arrivals, and the motives of those who construct them. My article is a philosophical piece, based in notions of ethics and morality as espoused by Levinas, Derrida, Foucault, Kant, Douzinas, Nussbaum, et al.

I’ve fully engaged with all your posts, as a responsive OLO author, and have now twice suggested that we agree to differ.

Here’s an idea. As your field is statistics and law (?), write an article for OLO complete with all the evidence for your conclusions about the number of boat arrivals, changing the laws etc. Add your name, experience and qualifications, as have I, so I know if you are informed enough in your area of expertise to know what you are talking about, and whether or not I need to be listening to you.

In your posts you have cited no sources other than yourself, and you are anonymous.

The theory does not contradict the facts just because an unknown poster says it does. Every undergraduate knows that.

I'm not willing to continue any longer with an unknown person making important and unsubstantiated claims.

So unless you are willing to reveal your sources, your area of expertise, your qualifications to draw the conclusions you have drawn, and your name,this conversation is over.
Jennifer.

Jennifer you say:

///“My article is an opinion piece about the use of propaganda by politicians and colluding media that works to characterize asylum seekers as illegal and criminal ///

1)You are a much better exponent of propaganda than many of our politicians:
---This is you talking about the refugees: “their extraordinary strengths” “people with drive, ingenuity and courage”
--- This is you talking about (practically)everyone else: “a rogue state… an act of two-faced political bastardry”
--- And this is you speculating on Tony Abbott’s plans: “Will he fire on the vessels that disregard ,risking death and injury to asylum seekers and their children, in international water …will we kill and maim them”
---And then, the piece de resistance: “indefinite” detention and TPVs create “uncertainty” which “manage(s)to achieve what the Taliban could not”
I would suggest that this is on a par with the best political propaganda.
2) As for the “colluding” “tame” media. Large parts of the media are very sympathetic to the“asylum seeker” cause.Anyone who has visited sites from the ABC or SBS or Crikey or Punch or watched Channel 10’s 7PM project would find it hard to classify them as part of your tame, colluding media—unless they were tamed by you. And even The Forum for all its (usual)even-handedness carries many more articles from advocates like you than your opposition.

/// It’s about changing domestic law, and withdrawing from the Convention. It is about sloganeering like “stop the boats.”///

No it’s not Jennifer, you have no desire to withdraw from the convention or change domestic laws –it’s a rhetorical ploy you use .

When it begins to look like some might take the bait, you promptly jump in with: “[W]e will look very, very, very bad in the world if we change either or both of those things.”
And, when that is shown to be false :
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11466#195641
You ignored it .

/// I challenged Abbott to rationally explain how that would be achieved///

How ridiculous!
As has been pointed out, you need only look at what his party did the last time they were in power.In fact ShadowMinister pointed this out, with stats to back his argument:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11466#195606
But it made no impact on you

You might also look at the sending back of the Papuan boat :
http://www.news.com.au/immigration-starts-deporting-papua-new-guineans-claiming-australian-citizenship-as-another-boatload-arrives/story-e6freoof-1225975957261?from=public_rss
How is it possible for us to stop/turn-around the Papuan boats but not boats from elsewhere?

And as for this outburst:
“I'm not willing to continue any longer with an unknown person making important and unsubstantiated claims.

So unless you are willing to reveal your sources, your area of expertise, your qualifications to draw the conclusions you have drawn, and your name,this conversation is over.”

All I can offer is … ROFL

Lies, damned lies and

Statistics just reinforce

The propaganda

Come on Jennifer, be honest now.

You and other refugee advocates would be screaming blue murder,
if the Govt withdrew from the convention and relisted with the
terms that Australians actually support.

You claim to do no harm, but I don't think that is the true effect
of what you are doing.

For every economic migrant with money, who learns the lines, jumps
through all the loopholes of the Convention and claims asylum,
some poor bugger without 2 cents to their name is being left
behind in a refugee camp.

So you might not intentionally be doing any harm, but those people
are clearly harmed by the fact that the UN Convetion is not being
tightened up, so that only legitimate refugees gain a place.