We can and should send asylum seekers to Malaysia in exchange for five times as many genuine refugees.
Yes, the Malaysian solution only returns men.
However, we can reopen Nauru, as a temporary detention centre, exclusively for women and children.
The centre has a village like atmosphere, a health clinic and a school.
Neither Malaysia or Nauru hold people behind razor wire, and the enduring shame of the Howard admin.
We are just one of 3 countries that resettle significant numbers of refugees.
There are 15 million people currently residing in hell hole refugee camps, sometimes for many decades!
Each and every one of the boat arrivals, potentially deprives a genuine legal refugee of a resettlement place.
Hardly fair, particularly, when recent revelations have established that people smuggling criminals, were allowed in and given refugee status and family reunion entitlements.
How many other non genuine extremely deceitful refugees, have slipped in under the postured guise of genuine legal asylum seekers? [And Marilyn wants an open door policy?]
It really is time we took full control of this problem.
In conclusion, family reunion ought only be progressed, when and if intending refugees become committed fully accepted/sponsored, integrated/assimilated Citizens?
This will also act to slow down the irregular arrivals, who basically have more money and means, than those confined for desperate decades in very very basic/primative refugee camps, and then rely on family reunion to bring other family members here, which in turn, compels even more genuine refugees, to wait even longer!
Rhrosty.

Yabby what is the most deserving and what does that have to do with anything?

I am more deserving than many but that means nothing at all.

When people have protection in one country they are not covered by the refugee convention.

So why do people in this country think we can unilaterally break the law and expect our 147 partners to agree with us.

The "Malaysia Solution". We send a lucky 800 back to Malaysia (instead of Indonesia, from whence they probably came), and of course to wonderful 'new age' living conditions, as assured by the fully honest, compassionate Malaysians - and what sort of tortuous process will be used to select those 'lucky 800' anyway?
And then we receive 4,000 'genuine' approved refugees, to be housed in the community, supposedly, and under conditions which some homeless Aussies would give their eye teeth for. And then it starts again, 800 back, 4,000 in - or 4,000 in and then, maybe, 800 back. 20,000 in, to 4,000 back? Malaysia will be pleased.

My what a lovely circus, while many thousands or millions sit in desperate squalor in refugee camps elsewhere in the world, many even more worthy than those who have had the means to make it to Indonesia or to Oz. Many with families and therefore unable to embark on such a treacherous journey even across one border, let alone many - and with border personnel with their hands out at every crossing point.

Even from Malaysia we are looking at those who have forced their way to the head of the queue - with next stop Oz. Fully fair? Don't think so.

So some families send forth one or two pioneers - mostly young men - but of course the rest of the family stay at home 'in obvious peril for their lives', as we have so often been assured, but of course these pioneers are 'genuine refugees'. Yeh, right.

But of course we helped generate this crisis through our assistance with invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and our support of incursions elsewhere, so of course we have to take all the displaced persons we can possibly house, in view of our guilt? The best of intentions gone badly astray, and now we have to pay. I remain unconvinced - except for the possibility that in our generosity we may end up importing some of the sectarian hatreds directly responsible for so many of these displaced persons in the first place. Buyer beware.

Marilyn,

What law has the pacific solution broken?

The Malaise solution; a mere bagatelle. With the first 800 landing Christmas Island week likely to occur soon the rerouting of 2% (for the innumerate, 1 week of 52, less religious holiday celebrations is 2%) is a rounding quantity. Plus the evil of sending people to a non UN signatory country, especially an officially Racist one such as Malaysia (status of Bumiputra) just shows Labors contempt and indifference for ordinary people.
Labor admits to drowning 1 in 25 of boat people, given their facility in lying what is the true value, 1 in 20, 15 or even 10?

I have as much sympathy for asylum seekers as you could get, but am not happy with the alternatives offered by anybody.
I strongly suspect that by increasing the numbers accepted, as the Greens wish us to do, you would also increase the demand - hundreds of thousands more people would clamour to be let in. We risk establishing a third world type slum if we take in so many. Australia is an expensive place to live! I understand the reasons behind the various parties' policies but none of them seem to be good value for money, or particularly kind to asylum seekers.
Let's be very careful what we agree to, as once all these people arrive there is no sending them back again. Would we make a rod for our backs which is irreversible?
I have another suggestion here - as costs are so much cheaper in third world countries, let's find a third world nation who is willing to accept the refugees on our behalf, in exchange for the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would cost us to accommodate, feed and support them. We take our businesses offshore, including printing and various other things as it's so much cheaper. Let's take our asylum seekers permanently offshore as well - let them find new homes in cheaper countries and give those countries the money we would have spent. Everyone would be much better off!
Already I put a large proportion of my wages into assistance for charities in third world countries. We would get far better value for money and it would create more jobs in the third world country of choice