Every Australian concerned with this continual tragedy should contact Tony "refugee" Abboat's office, 0299776411, and demand he stop voting with the Greens and pass the immigration departments Malaysia solution immediately, how many more people will die because of Tony "refugee" Abboat's base politicking and how many more and more of Scott More-issons refugees will be encouraged to lose their lives Que jumping the Howard Govt appointed immigration departments experts recommendations? Over a thousand have now made the voyage since Tony "refugee" Abboat voted with the Greens to cause this tragedy that the "experts all warned" would continue to happen again and again.

Mirko. You mention processing, but not the elephant in the room. That is, most of the boat people throw away their documents. It is therefore a very costly and time-consuming process to establish who these people are, where they actually come from, what their stories really are, are they a risk to Australia, why have they thrown their papers away, and why should they be allowed to jump to the head of the queue.

There is a simple answer. No papers - No Entry.

Clearly there may be some genuine cases of lost papers. OK, acknowledge that, but tell them that there will be a long bureaucratic process, detention until their stories are verified. That they will need to cooperate with DNA matching with family back home so that their identity can be confirmed etc.

For some reason, all of these discussions fail to mention the thrown away papers issue, which is clearly a big part of the problem.

And when it comes to people in their 20s masquerading as unaccompanied minors under 17. Tell them that we can establish their age through tests, and if they are found to be telling untruths, they will be deported.

Has anybody ever considered that the Illegal Entrants do not throw away their documents as they have no legal reason to do so, perhaps they sell their documents after landing in Indonesia and the person they sell to then uses them to fly in on a visitor's visa then apply for refugee status?

Mirko,

Simplistic to the point of farce. Aren't you forgetting about all the tumoil in international affairs since 2006? The continuing internal strife in Iraq and Afghanistan, the internal conflicts in Shri Lanka and various African states, and the Arabian Spring, all of which have contributed to a mass refugee exodus? This exodus has been overwhelming European states, Malaysia and Indonesia, and conditions in the latter in particular are far less than welcoming to these 'refugees'; thus massively exacerbating the refugee problem and the consequent boarding of smuggler boats for good old Aus.

Bring 13,750 from Somalia, because they're starving? How about using part of the $1 billion to feed them and to rejuvenate their economy, and whilst about it, how about ridding them of the likes of the Al Shabaab criminal curse or War Lords, or whatever parasitic psychopathic demagogues have been making their lives a misery? 13,750? What about the other million or so? Women and children first? So, let the men rot, eh? And Aus is a better future than fixing up their own country? Say, let's see if next year we can't 'save' those in Sudan, or Morocco, Egypt, Syria, Libya .... Aus, saviour of the world's poor and underprivileged. Hooray for us!

And, what do you propose for the still continuing boat arrivals? Turn them around? Or ship them back from whence they came? Fat chance.

You are living in a dream world, Mirko. Time to wake up now. Not all solutions are simply political.

We did not create the situation of plight so many face in our troubled world. We can help to alleviate their situation perhaps, if they can also help themselves (and stop having so many children perhaps). But, we alone cannot, and should not attempt to save all the world's poor, or act as executioner and take a few here or there, leaving the rest to rot. Multi-national restoritative action is the only viable solution. All else is a continuation of a badly failed system.

Saltpetre,

Mirko Bagaric may be living in a dream world but is there any other world in which a humane man can go?

We, the Westerns, are responsible for the present world situation. We went and colonized Africa and the Americas and Australia and poisoned those people lives with our social values, religions and greed and washed our hands when we left.

Now, even if we wished, we cannot help, as the same greed that took us to their country is poisoning our lives.

Dreaming is all we have left while the CEOs of our corporate West exploit the planet dry

Do grow up skeptic, self hate is not pretty.

India & China, South Africa, Indochina, Indonesia, the Philippines & to some extent even Bangladesh are prospering on the development & infrastructure left behind by colonialism. If African countries have not taken advantage of the infrastructure it's no body's fault but theirs.

Yes Saltpeter, the best idea is to bring in no one who will not be an asset to the country, avoid wasteful expenditure which does nothing for Oz, & spend the money saved in the country of origin. Any amount of money will go much further, & do more good for more people that way.

Why do people like Mirko get to spout this sort of idiotic nonsense? It's Gillards fault that the Sri Lankan government started an ethnic cleansing exercise, or that the Iranian mullahs stole and election and started torturing dissidents, or Al Qaida in Iraq thanks to our war has started slaughtering and torturing christians and Kurds?

It is nothing to do with our stupid policy, it has everything to do with what happens elsemwhere.

And Gillard cannot simply pass any law she likes, the High Court have made that very clear three times in the last year.

Only dictators whom the refugees have fled get to make arbitrary laws.

Juliar has the ability to have off shore processing tomorrow if she accepts the coalition's compromise.

Only pride from a decade of deriding the coalition's off shore processing is stopping her from doing the right thing.

Shame on her.

There is no such thing as off shore "processing" for protection in Australia because they have to be in Australia.

Will you ignorant people learn the facts before prattling.

Now 148 reaffirmed their commitment to the convention on the 8th of this month, it went entirely unreported in this country, but what if all those 148 nations now said 'we don't like you' you will be assessed in some other country, no-one would ever be allowed to land anywhere and it is because of that happening with jews that we have the convention.

That convention is not a convenient hand bag to be changed when we fell like it, it is legally binding law.

Marilyn,

You know, there's quite a difference between an occasional dissident or political refugee seeking asylum, and a mass exodus of people fleeing their own governments - and not just from one government, but from many.

There's also a difference between someone fearing for their life because they collaborated with a foreign power (or were simply a translator or a guide for same), as happened in Vietnam and has happened more recently in Iraq and Afghanistan - although these latter are supposedly now under democratic rule - as against masses fleeing poverty and destitution. (Or even fleeing local guerillas, War Lords, or the likes of Al-Shabaab, whom their own governments have been unable or unwilling to control.)

What then was the objective and spirit of the International Convention, as it was drafted and originally intended? To cater for the occasional threatened individual(s), or for discontented millions? The recent re-affirmation: Was this to merely reaffirm the original intention, or is everyone now looking for as many nations as possible to share in the housing of the current mass exodus - because everyone is getting overloaded and reaching bursting point, with civil unrest and protest at the new insurgence of interlopers seeking a more secure and more prosperous future for themselves and their children?

There are many international conventions relevant to the current situation, including those regarding civil and human rights. Hence, which is more conducive to a long term solution? To reinforce civil rights, or play lip service to this and play the refugee card? And, why? Could it be to avoid hurting foreign investment interests, or oil supplies and trade arrangements, or just because of a breakdown of international relations, as now in Syria?

Multiple vectors apply, but catering to mass exodus, and thereby promoting its further escalation, does nothing to address base causes, and is proving to be an unsatisfactory approach - for both 'refugees' and their adoptive countries. 'Refugees' are not getting a warm reception in many quarters, and this situation can only get worse unless the causes for exodus are properly addressed.

Why is it always Abbott who is to blame for the legislative impasse? It only needs a small handful of votes from the independents or the greens to pass any worthwhile legislation. When Gillard and her minions wake up to that, all should be fixable, but for some obscure reason, pragmatism seems to have gone out the window.

David

I have eyes like yours, Hasbeen, yet if an apple is in front of us we see different aspects of it.

You are right when you say “India & China, South Africa, Indochina, Indonesia, the Philippines & to some extent even Bangladesh are prospering on the development & infrastructure left behind by colonialism”. I would similarly add the Americas and the African nations.

But who, within those places, is really prospering?

And, does ‘prospering’ mean be less frugal with this planet’s gifts?