Hi Marilyn,

There are more than forty million refugees across the world. Do you propose taking them all - no waiting, no 'queues', all welcome ?

Or do we actually have to make decisions, selections, to set limits and targets ? It's very touching for that silly girl to weep over a particular case, but all of those forty million have their legitimate stories.

So let's get serious. Let's double or quadruple the annual intake, certainly - that should kick it up to about fifty thousand. But how many are actually on the list, how many have applied, how many of these desperate people have been in the queue for ten years, five years, two years ?

I am beginning to suspect that Greens, and professionals generally, are not too bright: they seek happy answers and simplistic 'solutions' to incredibly complex - and inevitably unhappy - problems. Hence, their childish and blinkered notion of on-shore processing, which would do what for the leaky boats ? Stop them coming ? Encourage them to keep coming (at least, as far as they can get before they sink) ?

Would the prospect of off-shore processing only, and many years spent in some other hell-hole while their names are put at the back of the queue, encourage people to simply wait their turn ? If people knew for sure that they would be sent to Nauru or Manus Island (i.e. territories of signatories of the necessary UN Conventions), and that their names would be THEN put at the end of the list, so that they had done their dough as well as put themselves off-side with Australian authorities for no real purpose - would they be still tempted to get on old boats ? To put their kids on such boats ?

There are no happy stories here. To weep and wail over this person or that simply means that some other person, unknown to the weeper, misses out, Pollyanna notwithstanding.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth, at last a voice of reason.

The only concern I have with your plan is the necessity for Nauru to be a place where it takes as long to be processed as some UN camp in Asia and beyond. If Greens got wind of this notion you'd have problems straight up.

I agree with a substantial increase to a new finite limit on immigration intake, favouring refugees in particular, and I don't know why Greens didn't sue for this on Friday. Perhaps they think they can block the coalition's attempt to reinstate Howard's legislation should they achieve gov't, but they don't seem to understand that, by their current performance they're paving the coalition's path to a ruling majority and their own demise so that they can be ignored. Babes in the woods

Under Howard's legislation, the prospect of only a year or two on Nauru was no impediment to IMA's, who dangled their children overboard for the opportunity to be taken there.

Clive has the answer! http://www.news.com.au/national/let-asylum-seekers-fly-in-palmer/story-e6frfkvr-1226412973378
Now that's sorted, on with solving solving global warming, fossil fuel depletion, USA and Europe.

Yeah, so how many million does Clive want? If you want millions,
I could easily backload on a sheep ship and make huge money in the
process, safer and cheaper than airfreight.

People need to get real here. Australia cannot save the planet and
no matter how much the hearts of the Marylin's of this world beat,
closing their eyes and wishing for reality to go away, ain't gonna
happen.

Hi Luciferase,

There are two inescapable realities:

(1) Life as a refugee anywhere must be miserable, in Africa, Indonesia, on Nauru or stuck up near Port Hedland or in Villawood.

(2) With forty million refugees in the world, and perhaps a hundred thousand who have applied over the last few years in all the 'right' ways to come to Australia, there is a waiting list, a queue.

So when you suggest that Nauru (or Manus Island) is

" .... a place where it takes as long to be processed as some UN camp in Asia and beyond...."

- if refugees, out of their terrible desperation, try to jump the queue, are plucked out of the sea and end up in Nauru, then if others knew that their names would be simply re-ordered, and put at the back of the queue,

and that they would have to start their wait all over again, but this time on some poky island in the middle of nowhere,

then they may not decide to fork out thousands of dollars and risk the lives of their children on the seas.

There is no easy way out of what is a huge problem. A Senator can weep all she likes over this one or that one, but there are millions scattered across the globe with equally legitimate concerns. Every refugee is a person like you and me, of equal value, and in a fully just world, they would be able to exercise all the rights and opportunities that we can. But the world is not like that. Some problems don't have easy or quick solutions. Some don't have solutions at all, in an unjust world.

Cheers,

Joe

We agree that there are millions of displaced persons in the world. The two questions for us is how many should we accept, and which ones?

It is possible that these questions can only be answered by a referendum, as it is clear that democracy by political parties is letting us down and the majority will is being denied.

Question 1. Should the annual migrant intake be increased by 20% to include a higher proportion of refugees?

(note that this would be a total of approx 35-40000 refugees p.a compare with approx 15000 now)

Question 2. Should refugees who find their way to Australia be considered for resettlement ahead of those waiting in UN camps in other countries?

Question 3. IF your answer to Question 2 is NO, should arrivals be transferred to UN camps in other countries by arrangement with the governments of those countries?