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?