That is not how it works Yabby.
We can choose to only accept 6000 from over seas but we cannot dictate how many arrive here and ask for protection.

I agree wholeheartedly with Rhian. Professor Kessler's grossly idealistic espoused 'Utopian' derivatives of his proposed 'solution' totally defy credibility.

One undeniable truth in this piece:
>..even the refugees themselves are acting with an undeniable and pronounced degree of similar premeditation in their plans to reach and secure asylum here.<

Can we blame the "refugees" for their motivations? No, of course not. Can we blame their countries of origin for generating that motivation? Yes, most certainly - as we can also blame all of those countries who have passed 'the problem' on, one after another, perhaps sifting the chaff on the way, retaining cash handouts and perhaps some 'worthy' souls, and then passing on the 'detritus' to the next way-station. A stream of human misery preyed upon mercilessly by all concerned, and far from least by Indonesia - as it purportedly harbours and even promotes the 'people smugglers' - and Malaysia, whose treatment of non-residents is abysmal.

I agree with Rhrosty that space-age lie-detection should be employed to determine the bona fides of all asylum seekers - preferably at their country of origin, or at first port of call outside those borders - with genuine refugees given safe harbour and given a UNHCR 'green card' for early placement in an acceptable host nation - and with miscreants either placed in detention or repatriated immediately.

Action: International pressure must be put on Indonesia to stamp out people smugglers and smuggling, to stop the boats at source, and to implement effective 'refugee' processing, and international aid provided to assist both Indonesia and Malaysia with such endeavours and with managing their overall refugee or alien intrusion problems - as also to all countries in the exodus pathway.

In the end result, the only solution is to facilitate the earliest possible repatriation of as many refugees as possible to their home countries - by all countries participating in resolving the problems causing the 'refugee problem' in the first instance - and with only 'endangered' refugees relocated to host nations.

*but we cannot dictate how many arrive here and ask for protection.*

We certainly can Marylin, that is purely up to our politicians.

At the moment we abide by the out of date convention, because its
easier to do so, not because Australians accept an open door policy
to millions.So like it or not, you won't save the world, as they
are breeding far faster, at a quarter million more people per day, than
you or Australia can ever save them.

No Yabby we can't decide how many people can claim asylum because everyone has the right to do so.

We can change that very quickly Marylin, by changing the terms
under which we abide by the convention. A bipartisan approach
by the two major parties would ensure that. The Australian
public would be overwhelmingly behind it, bar a small number
of dreamers. Enough boats and that is exactly what will happen,
as public pressure rises. But at the moment Tony and Julia are
so eager to outsmart one another, its not yet being considered.
It will, when it needs to be. People learn by pain, after all,
including Australians. Sorry Marylin, but you won't save the
world, no matter how much your heart bleeds.

We can determine how many stay and how many are removed to Malaysia, Marilyn, not how many come.

Reinstatement of Howard's legislation will not make a difference, so why waste time over it? The naval blockade was easily circumvented by either reaching waters or using the UN maritime convention outside them.

Nauru detention was no more daunting than anywhere else under Australian care. in fact, they desperately fought to be taken there rather than be turned back.

TPV's saw higher proportions of women kids coming.

Any supposed success of the legislation in the past was due to push factors waning and people drowned under Howard's legislation.

Why would the Mad Monk, who knows all this want the Gov't to accept this path? Morrison was skitish about whether it would even be acceptable if the Gov't agreed to it, and the High Court has to like it too. Anyway, it's too good a crisis-creation device to let go of now, with an election around the corner.

The Malaysian swap, with UN and Greens and High Court blessing, is the only solution that has a chance of effectively stopping unsafe boats and drownings other than laying out a welcome mat and allowing the running a safe sea-shuttle and flight services into Australia.

Incidentally, I think we can increase our intake of all migrants, asylum seeking or otherwise, to a higher finite limit than currently, and the Greens should pursue this as a condition of their agreement with the swap.