Oh Luna Eclipse. a bit disingenuous.
"The ones found to be genuine are offered protection by Australia and by other friendly countries who subscribe to IOM and UNHCR services."
Rubbish. Other countries that take proven refugees under formal resettlement programs are very reluctant to assist with small numbers of refugees from Nauru/PNG they rightly regard as Australia's responsibility.
Australia does ultimately take most of them but after years of unnecessary delay and suffering. The psychological problems that result from being caught up in war and conflict are severely compunded by being incarcerated on Nauru or PNG for years. This then places an extra burden upon Australian health systems when the refugee does arrive here.
Just to emphasise the point. Its the detention environment of immigration centres, Nauru, PNG that turn otherwise psychologically sound people into people with mental health concerns. Current policy and legislation actively damages people. That can never be humanitarian.

a suggestion that lunaeclipse read just a few of the news reports on people detained in Nauru since 2001. it seems the buffet meals were not an adequate solution for everyone who spent years in offshore camps. People are placed offshore to deny access to fair processing and process - a non-solution that is expensive, unfair and unnecessary. a few links -

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/suicide-warning-led-to-visas-for-nauru-refugees/2006/11/05/1162661553417.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1718483.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1774355.htm

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/last-man-standing/2006/09/29/1159337339866.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Unfortunately, we have 6.5 billion going on 9 billion people on a planet that can sustainably support perhaps 2 billion in what most of us would consider modest comfort. This main underlying problem is not our fault, and there is nothing we can do about it, as Plerdsus said. Of course waste, mismanagement and conspicuous consumption by the rich don't help, but if all the resources were divided equally we would all have a level of consumption like that of Botswana (see the Redefining Progress site).

We can well afford to help a few thousand refugees a year, but all the experience from Europe and North America is that the numbers will rapidly snowball if we take in unauthorised arrivals. The Migration Watch UK site has published some Home Office Figures. 490,000 asylum claims were made in the UK between 1997 and 2004. This figure does not include immediate family members who arrived after the claim was made (about a third more). 21% of those arriving between 1997 and 2002 were found to be genuine and granted asylum, and about 13% deported. The rest stayed on. Once asylum seekers are in the community it is very difficult to deport them. All appeals must be exhausted, corrupt businessmen, politicians and officials help them hide, the government must be able to prove where they came from, and home governments frequently refuse to cooperate with deportation.

I will take the Sunfires and Shoshanas of this world more seriously if they devise a "humane" strategy that doesn't end with us being swamped.

divergence, you are missing the point. There can be no justification for inhumane policy. Just how far would you be prepared to go in terms of 'inhumanity' to alleviate your fear of being swamped? Are you prepared to persecute people to keep them out? We are dealing with innocent human lives. If your concern is self preservation, as you say, then you would probably go to further lengths than these people if you were in the same situation.

Succinctly put Sage – “they are not asylum seekers, they are asylum shoppers”

Nice,, you get my support.

Of course one of the primary reasons for processing offshore is to stop access of various slimy lawyers, who glean a living from billing these hapless souls and then divert their charges to the government which we, as tax payers, end up paying.

For my money a tough response to all illegal entrants is the best way of controlling what might otherwise become a flood of “economic refugees” (one for you to add to your lexicon Sage).

Some will complain that it is expensive to maintain off shore facilities but running Baxter and Port Headland etc. with “illegals” in there for years is no cheap option either. The saving is in the ones who do not end up in such places, creating havoc and wrecking property.

Miacat, not sure what you have been sniffing out there in the desert but it is not doing you much good.

Divergence’s observation about an unfettered population explosion is right.

The problem is not all Australias and not of Australian making. It is the underdeveloped world who are creating the explosion.

The best thing we can do is hold back from being inundated with illegal immigrants pretending to be refugees and hopefully leave a semblance of sanity to survive in an ocean of uneducated, unemployable people breeders.

LunaEclipse: the game is up. Your polished text is just too slick-sided to be scribbling, from a mug poster. You're presumably a professional PR writer, paid, to push a particular viewpoint, whatever that is. Probably posting anonymously from a ghost site.

LE gave away some interesting details, about how harsh the Pacific Solution is. I need to go into a bit of detail, please bear with me.

First, money. LE says detainees get money – sounds good. One thing people like to do, is choose their own clothes, and Nauru has shops where they can do this. But Nauru detainees don’t get to go clothes-shopping. We are told they are “provided with clothing”. This conveys a prison officer issuing uniforms, or a charity doling out old stuff. And of course, if you provide clothing, you impose your choices on people, about what they wear. Remember, in normal prison, losing the right to wear your choice of clothes, is part of the punishment.

Next, food. LE says “They are provided with professionaly prepared buffet style meals " - ie standard Australian canteen fare. Sounds good, but to a person from Sri Lanka, that's unfamiliar – they'll prefer home style recipes, at least occasionally and might like to prepare meals with friends. But LE reveals detainees never get to do this, even if they know how to cook. Food is always chosen by others; always comes ready-cooked; always in a foreign style. Presumably there is nowhere provided, for detainees to cook for themselves if they want to.

Also, phone calls are not free. And "assisted re-settlement in their country of origin" - nice try at spin, on forced repatriation. I could go on.

So LunaEclipse, the game is up - your style gives you away. Presumably paid to keep an eye on the web, find posts quickly, in obscure chat groups, then shoot them down. Your employer must keep a tough grip though - he had you working til 11 pm, the day Ms Metcalfe posted, to post your words.