Marilyn Shepherd Quote "it is a legal right which we cannot take away." you are wrong what about the (forget what country he is in) man the UN organization tells Australia we must let him back into the country the Government tells them NO. It seems we can say no but selectively.

And I am frankly disgausted that Graham Young can publish this with so many untruths and absolute fictions in it.

So which nation residing on this continent has formed a national consensus on undocumented migrants?
Which Nation has the right to exercise freedom of choice in this matter?

Would Sinhalese choose to live next door to Tamils?
Would Sunni Afghans choose to live next door to Hazara?
Would Shia Iranians choose to live next door to Sunni Iraqis?
Would Uighurs choose to live next door to Han Chinese?
Would White Australians or Aboriginals choose to live next to any of the above?

This country is and always has been run by and for Anglo Saxon supremacists, "Human rights" and "equality" is part of their value system, the rest of us...you know, the "other", the stigmatised minorities don't share their world view and we resent the fact that we have no political representation and thus have no choice in the matter of who our neighbours are.
An Afghan has the choice to live his whole life seeing nobody but other Afghans, hearing nothing but his own language and sharing his life and practicing his customs with people he understands and relates to.
Nobody in Australia has that option.

Marilyn, you pay absolutely no regard to the numbers of onshore asylum seekers, the fact that arrivals will escalate if we make Australia inviting to them, deaths at sea, the discontent in our society that this is whole fracas is generating, the enormous cost to the tax-payer, the better accommodation and financial support that asylum seekers get compared to a lot of Australians, the much greater claim to asylum that those chosen via our offshore programs have, the right that we have to protect our borders, the fact that we can close down onshore asylum seeking AND continue to be a very good humanitarian nation, etc, etc.

In short, your whole argument is enormously blinkered and unfortunate.

<< there is no such thing as off shore processing… >>

What?? Yes there is, as there was under Howard

<< … the idea is to push asylum seekers off to anywhere but here and make sure they never get here. >>

Bollocks!!

Most of them will be found to be refugees and will become residents…until we reimplement TPVs.

Offshore asylum seeking is part of the essential strong deterrence factor.

<< those refugees overseas have zero claim to come here… >>

Whaat??

Those chosen to come to Australia for a new life are those in most need of resettlement. They have the best claim of all.

continued

<< we do not own the oceans and seas and cannot by law dictate to anyone who sails on them… >>

But we do have borders, and rules of entry. And we do have national maritime areas, with rules of entry. So in that way, we do own part of the oceans and can dictate the rule of law to anyone who is trying to come here illegally or unsolicited.

<< Our internal policy is that we lock them up like criminals with less rights than mass murderers and claim it is legal. >>

What an extreme view!! Onshore asylum seekers have been detained in centres with high walls and razor wire because we had all manner of problems with people initially absconding when there was no detention and continuing to defy authorities and disappear when we had low-security detention centres.

That’s enough. I could go on at great length arguing with you Marilyn, but there’s no point.

I’ll just note one more thing – you’ve written a couple of long posts here, but most of the time in our many previous encounters, you’ve been very sparing with your words (and very offensive on numerous occasions), and just not forthcoming with a response when I’ve picked you up on things.

So perhaps this time you might directly respond to the points that I've raised here, with a ~350 word response ?

Graham,

Your survey confirms what most of us have known for years, i.e. that Australians have faith that the pacific solution once reanimated will deliver the same results it did previously.

What I find amusing is the claim by the bleeding hearts that this is illegal. TPVs are perfectly legal and comply with the UNHCR charter, offshore processing also complies. Turning the boats around is not covered by the UNHCR or Australian law as the Boats are not in Australian territory. It does however, comply with maritime law.