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.

Can't agree with King Hazza in that we already have section of our own community that fits his fearful description, just like any other community does.

Squeers, your position will ride nicely until the trickle turns to a flood. Your idealism is quaint, for now, then you'll reassess.

I would disagree on one point Luciferase, that our (otherwise) social demographic were moving towards a more moderate religious/secular leaning (even our most religious by world standards are quite liberal)- with a rapidly shrinking extreme religious minority. To import medieval extremists not only sets back this progress of moderation, but they prove even LESS compatible to the secular population of today- and thus the secular public are much more at risk of these people.

But that aside, the public should be able to decide what they are compatible with and not- rather than be told they MUST be subjected to potentially dangerous people because a person in power (eg someone who conned their way up a political, judicial or lobbying group to a position to call shots) feels that their own morals decree it.

I think King Hazza is right, and I'd rather be mean-spirited and xenophobic than mindless and conned.

Protection pending "repatriation"? Who really believes any asylum seekers are hoping for or intend to be repatriated? (Especially those unaccompanied children.) Political, or Economic, "refugees"? Fair dinkum asylum seekers or con merchants? Truly desperate or pasture seekers? These are the questions.

What sort of people send unaccompanied children on a smugglers boat? Those who are really desperate to protect their children from harm, or those who just seek better life prospects for them, as well as betting on getting accepted to Oz themselves afterwards - because they know there's no way we can send the children back to anywhere? (And how many of the family of the so-called "unaccompanied" are actually secretly on the same boat?)

The truth of course is that anyone from a harsh environment could be expected to do just about anything to get to the land of milk and honey, wouldn't they? But what about our interests? What should we do to maintain the milk and honey? This whole business is like a modern day invasion by stealth, and our hands are tied because of some legislation by our own government and our subservience to the refugee convention. Not satisfied with these restrictions on our sovereign rights, we further afford access to all sorts of legal avenues to make it all most impossible for us to turn anyone away. Talk about bending over backwards!

We help to try and "liberate" Iraq and Afghanistan and what do we get? Asylum seekers. How's that for a splendid outcome?

There's really only one solution - strict immigration processes, and stopping the boats at point of departure - together with wide promulgation via all media of a no-exceptions policy, with all arriving by boat returned immediately to their point of departure. Malaysia, and others, also need to tighten their borders.

If the cost of illegal immigration was put to assisting structured improvements in poorer countries the problem might just go away.

Saltpetre,

"We try and help "liberate" Iraq.....and what do we get? Asylum seekers."

Deary me, we helped to bomb their infrastructure off the face of the earth. We left one of the more advanced countries in the Arab world in a state of total ruin - and you seem to think we did well.
How dare these people have the nerve to claim asylum - from us! Don't they know how liberated they are?

I like your idea of "structured improvements in poorer countries"...but when you look at your example of Iraq, its obvious that the West prefers firstly to knock it all down as a precursor to building it up.

Poirot, you are right of course, there has to be a better way, and both Iraq and Afghanistan "invasions", for whatever "good" intentions, were wrong. Sudaam was cooperating, although that didn't make up for his transgressions, or for that of his sons. Afghanistan was even less justified. Still, there have been, and unfortunately continue to be, a string of inhumane situations around the world, and no easy solution. Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Syria... Where, and how, will it end?

One would hope that Tunisia and Egypt could shed some light, but still an exodus from Tunisia continued after the overthrow, and may be continuing. In Iraq, Sunni and Shiite continue the hatred and killing. In Afghanistan, the Taliban is not about to give up its objectives. Religious belief? Or, irreligious insanity?

Some common denominators perhaps, but what solution? Mankind's self-interest and inhumanity knows no bounds. Sad indeed. Greener pastures always beckon, and who is to be blamed for wanting to escape mental and physical abuse? No-one.

The world is changing and has a long way to go yet. Overpopulation, repression, deprivation, starvation, abuse, slavery, sickness, hopelessness and helplessness. And on the other hand - affluence, abundance, exploitation, excess, waste. A bi-polar world.

My principal concern is that we cannot save the world by taking on a mass of refugees, and we don't want to exacerbate our existing problems by any attempt to do so - we already have ethnic criminal gangs and ethnic rivalries, we don't yet have effective integration or assimilation.

We need a new peace movement, from the bottom up. China is showing a way - with investments in development in Asia, Africa and elsewhere - given with strings attached - but if this approach can achieve greater equity, opportunity and self-reliance in all those developing nations then this should be emulated universally. Hope, opportunity and universal law are the salves most needed to overcome hatred and intolerance. Despots have to die.

I thought this would be a funny quote, by a moron journalist "Mike Carlton" that largely proves the anti-refugee groups case:

"It was never a solution at all, merely political pantomime, a knee-jerk reaction to the xenophobic prejudices of focus groups in the marginal electorates of outer suburban Sydney and Melbourne"
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/gillard-solution-turns-to-dissolution-20110902-1jpx6.html#ixzz1WxDWqnJj

Did Mike actually just say that the main people who are against refugees are the people that actually LIVE IN THE SAME AREA the refugees are normally relocated to?
What does that tell us?

On that note- to all the people who insist Australia is a 'big country with plenty of room'- are you advocating we send them out into the drier remote, largely uninhabited regions?