<< Fees would contribute to the cost of maintaining and renewing infrastructure that others had paid for. Indeed, at the current level of immigration, a fee of $50,000 would generate about $10-15 billion annually. >>

Great idea! All immigrants should definitely be required to pay this sort of fee, to cover the costs of services and infrastructure.

But how would such as fee stop the boats? And even if it did stop people-smuggling and precarious journeys on rickety boats, it would do nothing to stop asylum seeking, would it?

In fact, even with a fee several times larger than that which people smugglers demand, asylum seeking would presumably greatly increase if they were allowed to simply fly in, pay a fee, and by and large just be accepted.

Surely we want to STOP asylum seeking, not just stop the boats! We want all of our immigration to be part of our formal immigration programs, with a predetermined quota, and nothing left open-ended. And we want the refugee category of our immigration program to assist the most needy, not the somewhat less needy, which onshore asylum seekers generally are, as the author says:

< They are neither the poorest nor the most vulnerable from the societies they leave behind. >

And we need to wind immigration right back to somewhere near net zero, in the interests of a sustainable future.

continued

As far as onshore asylum seeking goes, I can’t see why our government can’t decisively deal with it. What it needs to do is assert authority and…

show that Australia is being a good humanitarian citizen via our offshore refugee programs and international aid contributions and has been for many decades,

emphasise just how much onshore asylum seeking is costing us and how fractious it is to Australian society, with a constantly worsening outlook,

emphasise how dangerous the voyages are and how many people have been lost at sea while trying to get here,

emphasise that it has big majority support within the Australian populace for a decisive stop to the boats,

and then turn the boats around!

It will be a tough deal for the small number of people caught in the middle. But then they WILL stop coming, and many thousands will be saved from the ravages of people-smugglers and extremely risky sea voyages in small overcrowded unseaworthy boats. Potentially thousands of lives would be saved.

If this means withdrawing from the archaeic 1951 refugee convention, then so be it.

"and then turn the boats around!"

I always wonder what people actually mean when they say this. Is is literally turning their boat around 180 degrees and shouting "go on, get outta here!"

I just can't practically think how this would work. There would have to be protocols in place in case the above doesn't work. What happens if they refuse, if they sink their boat? Other than letting them drown, we would probably have to pick them up and process them, just as we are doing now. So then what?

It's a cute idea that would work for Britain, not Australia. It would deal with economic migrants in Australia, but not people claiming asylum.

The difference is that France is party to the Refugee Conventions, but Indonesia is NOT. France is also a safe territory, but Indonesia is not; in Indonesia rights of free speech are restricted and there is no effective law enforcement of religious or cultural freedom. If the Indonesian community takes a disliking to you the police will only show interest after your church or home has been burnt to the ground etc.

Ours is the same problem Greece had because people could come via boat from Libya or the middle-east nations that are not signatories to the convention. Greece could not send them back because the previous nation had no legal obligation to accept them back. It's a good situation for Indonesia, it gets money from the refugees wanting transit and money from Australia wanting to stop the refugees.

We suffer this fate because for 64 years we have been silent at the UN while democracy and human rights have been crushed in Indonesia, we remained silent as the Republic crushed the federated states of the United States of Indonesia during 1950 and we have remain mute ever since. So Australia has the neighbour it deserves for cowardice

The following link may just correct a few things:

http://www.amnesty.org.au/refugees/comments/24019/

Withdraw from the Refugee Convention like Japan and others, this then will stop them coming as they will not be accepted. I would like to see Sarah Hanson Young and other do gooders have the illegal refugees they so adore to have twenty or so live with them.
Having watched a Four Corners programme regarding this issue one felt like wiping away the tears, they were so hard done by, for goodness sake the ten pound English lived in non air conditioned Nissan huts in the 1950's, they didn't complain like these illegals, they nearly all will want compensation for all of their mental problems as soon as established here, which will break the bank that is already broken.
They are illegal people coming here, not joining the accepted entry as should be done by them. Most people I talk to have one solution to stop them, tow them out to sea and let fate decide their ending
Have you noticed they are mainly men on these boats.