Hi Joe

Yes, the numbers are declining, but whether due to paying the boats to turn around or the threat of indefinite detention is hard to tell.

If Australia accepts a few thousand more authorised arrivals each year, I doubt it is going to make much difference to the waiting time for refugees. There are 14 million of them.

http://www.unhcr.org/556725e69.html

Hi JKJ

My suggestion of receiving a large government handout was tongue-in-cheek, intended to illustrate that you had taken account only of part of the relevant costs.

I haven’t actually objected to a voluntary solution. I can see merit in it in principle, but large problems in practice. Indeed, in an earlier post I asked if you would support allowing asylum seekers entry if they had no access to housing or unemployment benefits. You did not reply.

Perhaps one day we will move to an entirely libertarian arrangement such as Yuyutsu describes, with borders open to any and all migrants, but no government support for their income, housing, education etc. Or one where we pay little or no tax and make our own decisions on where to spend the money we earn.

But I don’t think the Australian electorate will be up for that any time soon.

Until then …. all the plausible options entail government funding using what you call property taken under compulsion - tax dollars. Government will tax us to pay for their policies, and will decide where refugees will go - whether offshore detention and border “protection”, onshore detention, or community settlement.

It is no more coercive or deplorable that you might have to pay taxes to support refugee settlement in the community, than it is for me to have to pay taxes to keep them locked up on Manus. If you were consistent, you would surely direct as much ire at the people who want to spend your taxes on offshore detention as at those who want to spend your taxes on community settlement

Hi Rhoian,

Sixty million, at last count. Four million now from Syria alone.

What might one expect if the pay-off of crews is working, if no boats are getting through ? I suggest that, since there would be no point in staying in Indonesia any more, apart from the beauty of the people and the place, one consequence will be (or already is) reports of would-be migrants moving back to their home-regions, not necessarily their home-countries but nearer to their home-countries than Indonesia. i.e. when reporters report that the usual sorts of foreigners are no longer booking hotels, etc.

We'll see :)

Joe

Dear Joe,

You have a vivid imagination, or you watch too many horror stories!

If the smugglers were paid to take their refugees back to land, why wouldn't they then rustle up another cargo of fee-paying refugees and run them all back out onto the high seas to meet another Aussie ship, who will pay them again to take that lot back to land?
That's what I would do, how about you?

Hippie, I wouldn't put it past this Govt to hide any and everything regarding asylum seekers.
Remember, they have asked the Medical staff on Nauru not to tell the authorities or the media if they find any evidence of mistreatment or abuse amongst the imprisoned asylum seekers on that Island. I am disgusted by this action.
Are you ok with this?

Suseonline, "they [the federal government] have asked the Medical staff on Nauru not to tell the authorities or the media if they find any evidence of mistreatment or abuse amongst the imprisoned asylum seekers on that Island"

That is absolute BS, wrong.

If you are interested in the facts go to the transcript of the recent Q&A where you will find that Richard Marles, the current Shadow Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, put that allegation and others firmly to rest. See here, under 'Labor and borders',
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4250966.htm

See this in particular,
<RICHARD MARLES: Yeah, and, well, you’re able to make it public and that’s what’s important here and can I say there was a Senate inquiry into this, in which we sought to examine exactly this and assurances were given during the Senate testimony on that and the unanimous support report of the Senate absolutely said that all those protections were in place and an author of that report was Sarah Hanson Young. I mean she was the author of that report.

LARISSA WATERS: No, (indistinct) a dissenting report.

RICHARD MARLES: No, there was no dissenting report. There was a unanimous report on that in which Sarah Hanson Young was absolutely a signatory and now what you see is a very an easy road for the Greens and others to go down. I mean, it was on the basis of that, in answer to this question, that we supported the Australian Border Force legislation.>

Good on you Onthebeach....now you use the hated ABC as a source for your information?
And you believe the words from politicians mouths?,
What BS!
Do you think pollies from either party would tell the truth about the debacle on the prison Island of Nauru?

No, I prefer to believe the medical staff working on Nauru .
Why would they lie?
What would they have to gain by lying?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/detention-centre-doctors-workers-dare-government-to-prosecute-them-over-new-laws-20150701-gi24pr.html

Hi Suse,

You blithely suggest: " .... If the smugglers were paid to take their refugees back to land, why wouldn't they then rustle up another cargo of fee-paying refugees and run them all back out onto the high seas to meet another Aussie ship, who will pay them again to take that lot back to land?
"That's what I would do, how about you?"

Well, no, because no would-be refugees would be stupid enough to pay good money to get on a boat if they were sure it would bring them back to Indonesia. Again and again, IF they WERE stupid enough.

Most would hold onto their money, get the next flight back to somewhere nearer their homeland, an start to fill out the proper forms - and wait their turn, like a million other genuine refugees.

That's what I would do, how about you ?

Joe