And four of the usual suspects add zero.
Marylin,
Is that all you can muster ?

Marilyn, while I get what you are saying, I think you do perhaps over-simplify matters just a bit.

If I paid a small fortune for safe transport to a better life, I'd consider anybody who offered me a spot on an over-crowded, unseaworthy vessel unscrupulous. And, as these 'people smugglers' usually belong to syndicates operating outside the law at both ends, the term 'gang' is as suitable as any. Thus I find your denial of the existence of 'gangs of unscrupulous people smugglers' a little difficult to accept.

The second thing we need to consider is whether or not Australia is always a 'legal place of asylum'. My understanding is that we have no legal obligation to accept refugees who have come via another 'safe' country. If they come straight from Afghanistan to our shores, we must offer asylum if they are found to be legitimate. If they come via Indonesia, not so.

That said, law and ethics are two different things. I'm not convinced that those seeking a better life will find it in Indonesia. I'm also not convinced that there is any justice in saying 'no' just because our land is girt by sea and rather difficult to reach in one jump. We have a rather unfair advantage over those countries with land borders which are easier to cross.

I can't complain about asylum seekers without becoming a hypocrite - I live here because Australia took me in after a gentleman called Mugabe made a safe existence in my birthplace impossible. I suspect most of those who can afford to pay the fare for their dangerous journey have skills that are of value here. Many, by identifying our society's values as preferable to those of the country from which they come, may also have what it takes to 'fit in', given some assistance.

The numbers (at present, anyway) don't cause me too much concern. Their method of arrival does. I would hope a much smarter person than myself could identify a way of meeting what I consider to be our legal or ethical responsibilities without encouraging the process.

Is the unsafe boat so much more dangerous than the Taliban, the sectarian violence in Iraq or the killing fields of Sri Lanka and the torture chambers of Iran?

Fair dinkum why is it unscrupulous just because the boat might sink. A plane might crash, a car might crash, trains, buses and even donkey carts might crash.

We don't all stop using them do we?

Australia doesn't care if the boats are safe, they are just too corrupt to admit they don't want the refugees.

refugees,boatpeople,10 pound poms like gillard and abbots folks ! does it really bloody matter .......welcome folks just remember never to vote lib/lab/nat once in.............

Marilyn:

It is my opinion that it is unscrupulous to prey on the hopes and fears of vulnerable people to sell a service you can't necessarily provide. Promising passage to Australia is unscrupulous if:
1) The boat is unseaworthy and unlikely to make it to its destination
2) Those who make the promises know that their passengers are likely to end up in detention centres, possibly to be returned to their homelands.

I suspect that the picture sold to these immigrants isn't quite the reality. The protests, hunger strikes and general dissatisfaction of those in detention would suggest that this wasn't what they had in mind when they set out for our shores. Still, those who get them here can make a nice profit, so why should they worry? Or are they doing it out of the goodness of their hearts?

As for your 'plane might crash (etc.)' argument, it's a bit of a stretch to equate this:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/image/42406-16x9-340x191.jpg

with this:

http://www.flightglobal.com/airspace/media/galleries/images/24206/500x400/emirates-a380-landing-at-london-heathrow.jpg

isn't it?

Additionally, your statement that "Australia doesn't care if the boats are safe, they are just too corrupt to admit they don't want the refugees" is a little offensive. I'm part of Australia. I've stated that I do care if the boats are safe. I've never considered myself "corrupt". I suspect many others think the same way as me.

Finally, you refer to Australia as "they". Who, then, are you?

Of course, there is the other issue that the bulk of asylum seekers come by plane, not boat. We don't seem to have such a huge problem with that. I see two possible reasons for this:
1) The plane arrivals don't look so scary in the media; or
2) It is, in fact, the mode of transport that concerns many of us the most.
In my case, the latter is true.