Why not pay readers the courtesy of using a spell-checker?

unlkely
succceed
decelarationn
terrifed
allws
logisitcally

All would be picked up by the most rudimentary software.

I don't see what's logistically impossible about boats arriving by the tens then hundreds, perhaps even old steamers containing several hundreds at a time now that the light is green to go into full swing.

The third party solution is/was about making this untenable.
Most "asylum" seekers are seeking economic improvement more than fleeing from persecution. This is not determined by questioning new arrivals, who ditch identities and make it impossible to assess/process them, but by talking to the people from areas they have departed, who aspire to follow for the same economic reasons.

The acceptance of 4000 processed in-camp in Malaysia as trade for 800 new arrivals on our shores by boat is surely an indication of Australian bona fides in respect of our concern for refugees generally. If we do care for children, especially the supposedly "unaccompanied", we'd stop the boats in which their lives are being risked getting here.

There are some who say we should be both accepting the boat arrivals and those from Malaysia. Well, it's just mad for Australia to move unilaterally on this with the growing numbers further encouraged by the High Court decision (which will probably apply to any third party arrangement, including the Pacific Solution)

The UN will, no doubt, offer a committment to Australia to take the overflow of refugees via a multinational agreement. Anyone who thinks we won't be dudded by the UN on this with Australia being left holding the baby is not a student of the history of UN committments.

We can be as 'mean spirited' as we want- we do not owe the relinquishment of parts of our own space and place in society for every interloper who wants a piece of our action- especially if those interlopers bring only greed and religious baggage with them.

I keep asking this analogy, and people keep avoiding it;
If a drug-crazed psychopath were being chased by gangsters threatening to kill him, and he decided to try to hide in your house- and banged on your door screaming he'll kill you if you don't let him in;
Would you let him in? On the basis that his fleeing from danger is more important than your own safety from himself?

This isn't even the whole part of the question- yet people keep avoiding this simple moral dilemma, the same way they like to avoid the white elephant in the room that is the concern of some of our arrivals being mentally-unstable, violent religious zealots.

Until you can satisfactorily answer me the dilemma where YOUR personal safety is being weighed (rather than some remote-area/outer-city Joe-blow whose personal safety isn't worth so much), you can stop lecturing other people what "Their" responsibilities to others is supposed to be.

The Labor Party should hang its collective head in shame--and I'm sure many members are--at the way they've courted the racist-xenophobic vote that's the traditional turf, recently, of the conservatives.
Labor's pain and probable demise has been for a good cause after all, it's probably purchased a judicial inquiry into a decades-long populist-racist agenda. Even the Liberals are properly aghast at the xenophobia they're obliged to patronise and mouth on behalf of the constituents they justly despise. Look at Malcolm Fraser's disgust with the obsequious agenda of his latterday party on this issue. Labor is accused of being unrepresentative, though it's a badge it should wear with pride in this instance. But how does the Liberal Party represent its ideals when it descends into the populist gutter to follow an ignorant and paranoid nationalist agenda?
Shame on Gillard for cow-towing to the campaign directors and following Abbot down his excremental path.
But at least some good may come of it!

Some good just may come out of all this hoopla.

Here's two websites that pretty much sum things up:

http://newmatilda.com/2011/08/31/thats-it-malaysia-solution

And -

http://newmatilda.com/2011/09/01/not-judicial-activism.

Or alternatively you can always watch Andrew Bolt
and listen to Alan Jones. Your choice.

Wow, the legal eagles are leaping to the defence of their control of "the law" & through that, us.

That they control the whole process, & guarantee themselves great incomes, at our expense quite often, is obvious.

That they are frightened that justice, rather than the law, might prevail is equally obvious. Any one who expects justice to be served by our controllers of the law is a fool.

We will remain the pawns of these people, until we gain control of who stands in judgement of us. Only by electing our judges by popular election, every 3 years will that happen.