What a total mess – ethically, practically, politically and legally.

Net result

Refugees and asylum seekers transferred from Malaysia to Australia – 6,000
Refugees and asylum seekers transferred from Australia to Malaysia – 0
Net cost to Australian taxpayers - $XX million
Refugees in limbo awaiting processing - XX,XXX

I didn’t think it was possible to make Howard’s pacific solution look good. But by comparison, it does.

Apparently this convoluted mess was the easier solution than an initial character assessment of arrivals, and the immediate deportation of those who fell short of safe standards, and THEN the remainders get their refugee status itself determined in the community.

This article does paint an interesting slant to Malcolm Fraser (who was in power at this time)- that seems to project that Vietnamese people fleeing from a war involving an economic system he despises, aren't quite as worthy of his sympathies as extremist religious nutjobs in the Middle East.

This issue is out of control. At some point, it’s worth asking if there’s ANY conceivable approach to the problem that could survive the current overheated environment.

On the positive side, LEGAL immigration remains (relatively) uncontroversial. The argument that New Chums steal Aussie jobs isn’t fashionable. Unemployment’s low. Governments, not immigrants, cop blame for urban congestion owing to to poor planning and neglect of infrastructure. Australia’s population density is VERY low; if we lived primarily in small towns like Europeans and Yanks, we notice how empty this continent really is.

Another positive is demographics. Baby-boomers are retiring, we don’t produce enough children, hence migration is still welcome; the more taxpayers, the better -- if they’re work-ready. There’s lots of room, and jobs, in the Regions.

And another positive: we’re genuinely multicultural. Australians mislike small pockets of unassimilated migrants, but don’t mind ‘foreign‘ neighbours or co-workers. For a while there (~2004/7), our per-capita humanitarian immigration intake was second in the world after Canada’s, with no complaints.

On the down side, Australians don’t like ‘queue-jumpers’. ‘Procedural fairness’ means one thing to lawyers, something altogether different to Jane and Joe Average. Those spending years in UNHCR refugee camps elicit sympathy; those who can afford to self-select are considered sus.

Another down: ~7,000 boat people since ’08 isn’t a large number, but it’s growing. Australians see the EU dealing with tens of thousands, the US with hundreds of thousands, and wonder if it could happen here. It could. Even people-smugglers follow rules: they ship to Christmas Island, though they could beach their cargo anywhere between Broome and Weipa.

A zone of agreement wide enough to sustain a coherent national policy on illegal immigration won’t be based on ‘international obligations’. Focus on UN-vetted refugees could be uncontroversial, especially if SOME were skilled. Detention and TPVs are needed as proof that ‘WE decide...’ but not across the board. Instead of trying to bribe Malaysia, we could negotiate to trade 100 illegals/month to UNHCR camps overseas in exchange for 500 genuine refugees who’ve waited years. Or...?

Alternatively, Donkeygod- Australians simply don't like Islamist extremists.
It would explain quite well why immigration and refugees are so much more a contentious issue now, than in the past.

Some people need to do a reality check –wake-up and smell the roses, rather than the opium poppies.

It’s not just about the poor Hazara or the sweet and cuddly Chin. Both of which are merely the latest flavour of the month with activists.

Our justice/review system generous interpretation of the Refugee Convention:

“The High Court has explained that persecution may be directed against a person as an individual or as a member of a group. The persecution must have an official quality, in the sense that it is official, or officially tolerated OR UNCONTROBLE BY THE AUTHROITIES of the country of nationality. However, the threat of harm need not be the product of government policy; it may be enough that the government has failed or is unable to protect the applicant from persecution”

Gives practically every ethnic or religious group in south Asia (& beyond) cause to make a valid case for asylum.

The main limiting factor is the supply of leaky boats in Indonesia.

Those who think that letting thousands, or even hundreds of thousands in are solving the worlds problem are having themselves on. Or else, they’re suffering from the same lurgy that afflicts certain celebrities who think that by adopting one child of each colour they are being noble and enlightened.

Donkeygod,

Mass migration is controversial with a lot of us, whether it is facilitated by billionaire-friendly politicians or by misguided leftists who are effectively asking for open borders for anyone claiming to be a refugee. It is extremely difficult to deport failed asylum seekers, especially if they have destroyed their travel documents, as this gives the home country an excuse not to cooperate. See these Home Office figures from the UK

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108

Australia does indeed have a very low population density. That is because it is mostly desert. Only about 6% is arable land, mostly of pretty marginal quality. Unlike Europe or North America, soils haven't been renewed by glaciation or mountain building, apart from a few small areas over old volcanic hotspots. There are also serious issues with the amount and reliability of fresh water. That is why our government has been buying back water from farmers and spending billions on desalination plants for coastal cities. See these maps from Dr. Chris Watson of the CSIRO

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

We export about 60% of the grain that we grow in an average year and a lot less in a drought year, but this production is very dependent on fossils fuels, phosphate rock, and other inputs that are becoming scarcer and more expensive. If we also take a hit from climate change, we might be struggling to feed the people we have already.

Unemployment is not as rosy as you claim, as it is calculated by an extremely restrictive method, counting someone who has worked one hour in a week as employed. The Australia Institute has calculated that more honest methods would give us 14.3% unemployment, and 20.5% if we include the underemployed who want more hours.

"Poor planning" occurs because every new migrant requires $200,000 to $400,000 in infrastructure immediately, according to federal MP Kelvin Thomson, mostly from the public purse. It is likely to be many years before they have contributed enough to pay for it. Since the public would baulk at the necessary tax increase, the politicians have had little choice but to let infrastructure and public services deteriorate.