Jennifer,

Your are steadfastly ignoring the definition of "illegal immigrant". Even if a boat person was legally within his rights to come ashore, he does it without authorization, ipso facto he falls within the definition of an illegal immigrant.

A TPV for 5 years should be a sufficient deterrent.

The court ruling essentially overrode the excising of Christmas Island. Nauru being another country would still be able to prevent access to the Australian courts.

As for your question as to how the Pacific solution would deter them, rather than quibble about push and pull factors, the following should be sufficient:

2003 Pacific solution implemented arrivals drop from about 4000 p.a. to about 100 p.a. rapidly.

2008 Pacific solution removed, arrivals increase from 100 p.a. to 5000 p.a. rapidly.

There is no other logical explanation for the massive increase.

Shadow Minister

You are steadfastly ignoring the law that says unauthorised arrival should not be treated as an illegal act in the case of someone seeking asylum.

Ergo, someone requesting asylum is not an illegal immigrant as far as the law is concerned.
And most tellingly, is not treated by the law as an illegal immigrant.

The court ruling said off shore asylum seekers were on a equal footing with on shore. It was nothing to do with the excision of the island which remains excised, as does Ashmore Reef.

I do not agree with your TPV plan, or your Nauru plan, which I doubt could be implemented and sounds quite daft. But I have no further argument with you about any of this -if you believe these measures are reasonable then no doubt you will advocate for them.

It isn't me you have to convince. I didn't make the laws and I can't change them - I merely pointed them out. Don't shoot the messenger

I'll add that it will come as no surprise if when next in government the Coalition does indeed reopen Nauru. We already know that the Coalition has no regard for the law, domestic or international, when asylum seekers are involved.

Apart from the treatment of asylum seekers, what will be most alarming about such a move is the billions of dollars it will cost taxpayers, billions that could be much better spent, billions that are urgently needed for health, schools, infra structure and so on.

A centre in Nauru will be a very long term proposition. Given that almost all asylum seekers detained there were found to be refugees, it would seem a criminal waste of taxpayers' money.

None of this matters in the illogical and irrational world of xenophobia and vote winning.

It's really just another version of bread and circuses - keep the masses attention trained on the threat from outside, give them an external focus for their fear and hate, and they won't notice and complain about the inner disintegration.

This is always the goal of propaganda.

Have you been sucked in Shadow Minister? Or are you one of the propagandists?

Jennifer says: “The point of my article is that Australia advertises itself as a Western democratic signatory to the Convention “

I suspect that being “democratic” is well down the list of attractors.
Right up there on top of the list would be our affluent lifestyle /standard of living.

And I also suspect, most of the ADVERTISING is coming from people smugglers & friends & relations already resident in Australia.
“Come on down”
“The border checks are a pushover”
"The houses are big”
” And it’s easy to get rich”
http://www.bombnail.com/?p=133

After all, some of our new arrivals have shown little regard for liberal democratic values:
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2010/s3100693.htm?site=melbourne

It's refreshing to see that so many people, regardless of any threat to their own life or to that of their own family members would refuse to do anything illegal to ensure their survival.

It will make my job of pushing to the front so much easier if the time comes.

Jennifer,

It isn't me you have to convince. I didn't make the dictionary definition and I can't change it - I merely pointed them out. Don't shoot the messenger.

The issue is not about the number of refugees or their ethnic make up, as the numbers accepted have nothing to do with the number of boat people.

The issue is whether a responsible adult encourages children to play and die in traffic or use the zebra crossing.

Boat people are dying in their hundreds and Labor's idiotic policy that makes it easier to get accepted on the boats is beckoning them to a watery grave, and costing the country $billions more than under the pacific solution.

People are dying in the boats, stop the boats.