Serious food for thought .... Thanks Brian for pointing out the possible implications of a profound humanitarian issue right on our doorstep.

At least any refugee from this region will have a legitimate claim for asylum in that they have crossed a border into a safe country - not crossed a dozen borders to get to a place they want to migrate to.

Indonesia is a concern on so many levels

Slightly digressing from topic - I see Malaysia and Indonesia as the problem not part of it. The reason being they let these so called refugees in without visa or return ticket knowing full well they are not tourists who will return home after a holiday. They could stop them easily by requiring a visa and return ticket and a few simply questions at immigration.
To be they do not want to do this, there can be only 1 reason that is to undermine Australia and it is working. Why can't the politicians see this?

How will we cope with a 100,000 boat people a year? I believe that outboard powered traditional tinnies, would be very hard put to move that many people, in the first place; and we, simply unable and probably unwilling, to even try to cope with that many arrivals?
Nor would we welcome new super strains of tuberculosis, polio or virtually untreatable cerebral malaria?
In any event, it is purely hypothetical, and may never ever rise in an increasingly democratic Indonesia, which now has a history of granting regional autonomy, as a response to the sort of unrest hypothesized?
Indonesia, already plays host to around 150,000 allegedly displaced asylum seekers?
Similarly, Malaysia plays host to many thousands of very long term refugees.
[We really do need a regional solution and cooperative outcomes! This was the very approach we used to legally resettle well over 100,000 Vietnamese boat people, who almost to a man, had the good sense to hang on to their personal identifying documentation; almost as if it were their most precious possession! Which it was, as it turned out!]
All of these displaced people, waiting their legitimate turn in Malaysian or Indonesian refugee camps, have as many or more claims, and mental health issues, as those now on Christmas Island or about to be transferred to offshore processing centres.
Something extremely vocal green acolytes, routinely ignore, while they seemingly struggle mightily, with everything at their disposal, to assist criminal cartels and their extremely lucrative tide, in risked or routinely drowned humanity?
In any event, only those that present with verifiable identifying documentation, ought to be treated as GENUINE asylum seekers/refugees and granted temporary protection.
Protection that can and should be withdrawn, when and if peace returns to their places of origin.
Otherwise, law abiding applicants can present to become part of the hundreds of thousands, we currently take in, as legitimate migrants?
Rhrosty.

I just think, what we're seeing now is just the start of an era of mass migration. Populations are exploding in various parts of the world, and we will soon be facing a situation where for environmental, political, and economic reasons these populations simply won't be able to be sustained within their local areas. Many people will die in their own countries of course, but many will not accept this fate and they will seek greener pastures elsewhere. Aside from firing on boats as they enter our waters, none of the strategies at the disposal of developed country governments is going to prevent this.

And in any case, I've never understood how you can believe in free trade without believing that free migration is an intrinsic and necessary part of that.

So by way of preparation, I'd say Australians need to get over their fear of the unknown, and to come to terms with the fact that they don't have a monopoly on privilege just because they were born into it. Deep thinking about the logistics can commence from there.

The Sri lankans are sailing directly from Sri Lanka, yet we pretend they are not real refugees even though they are.

Why is it that the first person to respond still comes up with the tired yarn of crossing borders as if that matters? All refugees have to cross borders and if they have to cross more than one border they are still refugees.

We are currently trying to pretend that if we ship 2100 of the world's displaced 42 million to places like Nauru and jail them for years that will stop the rest from seeking safety.

Bowen claims it is to stop smugglers, but we are no going to charge the so-called smugglers and child so called smugglers jailed here are suing us.

We are going to punish the passengers for paying people who are not smugglers so we can stop not smugglers.

They have entirely lost the plot.

I think the "crossing borders" part is because I believe that the refugee is to claim or seek asylum in the first country rather than go through a number of countries that they could have claimed asylum in.
Again I believe maybe someone more knowledgeable will be able to confirm or say it is wrong.

I would guess a razor wire enclosed tent city would be the way, just as it is in other places, & should be here now. Definitely no resettlement, & return as soon as possible. Plenty of room up the cape after all.

Hell we could even see that wonderful organisation, the UN spending some money here for a change, supporting them. Nah I'm kidding myself aren't I.

Sam Jandwich,
You believe that's it's "inevitable" that people who cannot live in their birthplace will come to countries with majority White European populations and you are not willing to stop them because White people are born "privileged"?
White and North East Asian countries are well off because only we believe in ideas such as justice, charity, tolerance and compassion enough to put them into our legal codes and demand certain standards of behaviour from our citizens, on that basis alone we deserve all these "privileges" and we deserve to have the rights we believe in protected.
Get real, Haiti is a dump because of it's full of Africans, after the earthquake their men folk trampled and beat back women and children and stole all the donated food for themselves. How did the Japanese respond after a far more severe quake and a nuclear emergency to boot?
Race is real and it matters, why would you give up all the goodness, justice, intelligence and understanding contained in your own race simply because you can't stand the sight of suffering Brown people who have no concept of and no interest in maintaining such things?

*All refugees have to cross borders and if they have to cross more than one border they are still refugees.*

Well yes Marylin, economic refugees, just like the millions of
Mexicans pouring into USA, searching for a more prosperous life.
The present Convention gives them all the loopholes in the world to
do exactly that

@ Hasbeen: "I would guess a razor wire enclosed tent city would be the way, just as it is in other places, & should be here now. Definitely no resettlement, & return as soon as possible. Plenty of room up the cape after all."

I agree except I would rather see all the peoples of Australia inside. Have we learned nothing of the repugnance of Germany 60+ years ago ?

That aside, I think it inevitable that we will see 100's of thousands. Of course there will be carnage and death and that's a sad thing because the greed of the locals is breathtaking and endless.

"Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself. - Robert Ingersoll"

There has never been any law that says refugees have to stay in the first country, exactly the opposite.

Why would the UN spend money here? The UNHCR is entirely dependent on fees from countries who support refugees, not the other way around.

The UNHCR does not protect refugees, the do not have a country to protect them in.

@Marilyn,

<<There has never been any law that says refugees have to stay in the first country, exactly the opposite>>

Ok, Marilyn I'll see yah.
Please reference where "it" says the "the opposite"

I am not racist and believe every man woman and child has a right to freedom but I do have concerns with the number of refugees arriving on our shores whether by way of lawful or unlawful means.

Can our governments and their policies justify and sustain the numbers of refugees arriving here in Australia when we do not have the following
1. Employment to guarantee they can work and earn a sufficient income to exist and not be a financial burden on the Australian tax payers?

2. Afford affordable housing when many Australian people are now homeless and many others facing homelessness.

3. Adapt to and abide by the Australian traditions, customs and laws.

Our Australian governments Federal and State by their wisdom NOT elected to privatize many of our manufacturing industries, utilities, public transport and infrastructure to foreign investors, this has seen a decline in employment and we are witnessing mass redundancies of Australians becoming unemployed, this has led to people and their families being evicted from their homes.

As reported in the Herald Sun news paper 12/09/2012 most of Australian governments are broke and getting further in debt every day, so they are forced to generate more income by way of taxes and penalties on Australian taxpayers.

In my opinion just on the above we cannot justify or sustain the refugee intake as we are now doing regardless if they are housed offshore or in Australia

Gypsy, you are a sad little person aren't you? Australia is the richest country in this region no matter now many people whinge and pretend otherwise.

To claim we can't cope with a few thousand refugees is beyond ridiculous.

dering that the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights approved on 10 December 1948 by the General Assembly have affirmed the principle that human beings shall enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination,
considering that the United Nations has, on various occasions, manifested its profound concern for refugees and endeavoured to assure refugees the widest possible exercise of these fundamental rights and freedoms,
considering that it is desirable to revise and consolidate previous international agreements relating to the status of refugees and to extend the scope of and
protection accorded by such instruments by means of a new agreement,
considering that the grant of asylum may place unduly heavy burdens on
certain countries, and that a satisfactory solution of a problem of which theUnited Nations has recognized the international scope and nature cannot
therefore be achieved without international co-operation,
expressing the wish that all States, recognizing the social and humanitarian
nature of the problem of refugees, will do everything within their power to
prevent this problem from becoming a cause of tension between States,

Well yes Marylin, 1948 and well out of date. Not dealing with the
swarm of economic refugees which now exist, the law needs updating.

Slavery and Hitler were the law once, those laws needed updating
too.

The law needs to be relevant in 2012, not 1948, or you land up with
exactly the debacle that we have now.

Marilyn Shepherd - What drugs are you on Australia is $161 Billion dollars in Debt Indonesia is in Surplus.
It is a few thousand within 1 month alone.
Remember 85% of the refugees that had been here over 5 years were still on welfare after 5 years.
Even the UN has said a lot of these are ECONOMIC refugees.

If a beggar turned up at your door and wanted food accommodation etc and you were kind enough to give it to him, he uses your phone and calls all the other beggars who arrive in taxi's and now want you to support them how many will it take before you lock the door and kick out the one you helped first.

Marilyn Shepherd - if you wish your point of view to be respected, even if the vast majority have a differing opinion, you should refrain from addressing people as "sad little person" and similiar insults.

It fails to enhance your argument

Sam Jandwich says that we shouldn't expect "a monopoly on privilege just because we were born to it". Why ever not? We have both personal property (which Sam Jandwich probably wouldn't touch) and collective property: roads, schools, parks, hospitals, universities, the military, etc., etc. For many people, their share of the collective property is worth more than their personal property. This property exists because our ancestors and predecessors built it up for themselves, their children, and their neighbours. Australia remains a good place to live because we are keeping it that way. We certainly aren't perfect, but a great many other places are far worse. If Sam Jandwich thinks that it is impossible for people to wreck a rich country, he should read a bit about the history of Argentina.

It is true that we have a lot of natural resources, but many other rich countries don't. There are also resource rich countries such as Equatorial Guinea where most people are dirt poor because all the wealth is siphoned up to a kleptocratic elite.

Likewise, we are not responsible for "exploding populations" and the other problems such as bad governance in poor countries. Foreigners live (and want to live) in independent countries. They don't have to take any notice of what we think. While we ought to help if we can do it without disadvantaging our own people, it is very difficult to help people who are clearly unwilling to help themselves. It is curious how people who would never advocate Communism when it comes to private property and would recognise its effects on incentives, then call for it when it comes to a nation's collective property. I am curious as to whether Sam Jandwich would be prepared to welcome an alcoholic neighbour and his large family into his own house and give them all the same advantages as his own children, even if it makes his own children worse off.

After watching yesterdays protest march in various parts of Sydney by many people who are the followers of islam it reinforced many of my concerns.

We witnessed riots and violence which were worse than any protest marches previously taken place in Australia.

Many of the marchers may have attended for a peaceful march but found themselves caught up in what eventuated to be a riot of mass proportions.

It proves that there is an element of radicals amongst their communities who are willing and able to attack our Australian beliefs, customs and spiritual rights in the name of Allah.

How many of those protesters arrived on our shores as refugees?
How many of them accept welfare provided by us the tax payers?
Was this protest and riot the first of many we Australian people will be confronted with in the name of Allah?

Remember 1 thing these are the same religion (or lack of it) that are coming on the boats as refugees and most boats have 95% men. I have said before this is possible a deliberate action by Malaysia and Indonesia to undermine Australia.
They can stop most of them coming if they want to by introducing visas for them and return tickets and most important a few questions when they arrive. The know they are not going home after a holiday they are going to Australia.
The more that come the weaker Australia gets and more bankrupt.