What can you say? The refugee swap scheme is grotesque, bizarre, hair-brained, silly. Whoever dreamed up such an idea?

I agree with Azadeh Dastyar that the scheme might well provide another incentive to head for the USA or Australia if the punishment for being apprehended is to be transported from one of our countries to the other.

The questions just tumble out.

What is the motivation of the two governments? To appear to have a solution? But what is the problem that this is meant to solve? To fill up the vast emptiness of the new facility on Christmas Island? To close down Guantanamo Bay?

Will the swap be equal - 1:1 - or proportionate - per capita of population or per capita refugee numbers? Will it be ethnically-based - I'll trade one of your Iraqis for two of my Mexicans? Will whole families be exchanged or just the men? Will there be age restrictions? Will there be absolute ceilings each year?

The whole idea is fraught. Could it have come from an all-night session between our Lord Downer and their Ms Rice? What about an extension to political exchanges ? How about a swap of our Mr Howard with their Mr Bush? That would really cement ties, as they say in the tabloids.

Of course the swapping of illegals is ridiculous. But then, so is the whole asylum-seeking/ illegal entry/ refugee/ business.

The whole thing is a sham. Australia, through its naivety and weakness has been well and truly conned by people who have come here directly (illegally) or who have first conned the anything-goes United Nations in overseas camps – if they needed to con the UN in the first place.

The Third World management of the United Nations will do everything it can to transplant Third World people to the West. They have stated that it’s their intention to do so. It’s their way of ‘helping’ people.

Our immigration department not so long ago demonstrated its brilliance by locking up (in one case) and deporting (in another) two people who were legally entitled to be here. Drones like this certainly cannot be trusted to decide who should be allowed to settle in Australia.

The incompetents who are prepared to take on the unpopular job of Immigration Minister are not much help either.

Asylum seeking is all about cheats, liars and the gullible. It’s about people seeking better economic conditions and better lifestyles. It has nothing to do with the really oppressed and poor who cannot do a moonlight flit to somewhere nice.

The “refugee” business is a huge rort of the same magnitude as the climate change con. Our acceptance of it confirms the quickening of the 'death of the West'.

I still remember the thrill on Tampa Day, the 29th August 2001, when the armed forces of the Commonwealth prevented illegal refugees from landing in Australia. It was the day I really became enthusiastic about having John Howard as Prime minister.

The things Australia needs to do to solve the problem of illegals permanently are as follows:

1. Withdraw from the 1954 Refugee Convention.

2. Reinstate the Dictation Test.

Resume the original practice of sending officials into overseas refugee camps to select those with needed skills or otherwise of value to Australia.

Just think of yourself,Im ok no worries me mate?you are bloody lucky that you were not on the Tampa Selfish and self serving no moral values,in considering the plight of other fellow human beings

What dark caves do they keep coming from?

Plerdsus relishes the psychotic thrill he felt on Tampa Day, the 29th August 2001…the day he really became enthusiastic about having that most compassionate and truthful John Howard as PM.

I suppose Plerdsus is ecstatic that wars and natural disasters continue to kill thousands who might otherwise be seeking refuge in Australia.

Let’s keep Australia clean and lilywhite for worthy people like Plerdsus and John Howard. A couple of challenges to overcome, however.

(a) What is Plerdsus going to do about the hundreds of thousands of refugees who are already here and have built or started building families here? Some of these wretches have been here for decades. And now the next generation have started breeding.

(b) And what about all those black Indigenous types who had the gall to get here before Plerdsus? They were supposed to die out, weren’t they? Well Plerdsus would be happy to see we're keeping the right policies in place to cause them to die 17 years quicker than his genotype.

Here's some enlightened policy options to add to those supplied by Plerdsus. How about bringing back the slavery, the death penalty and public stoning. That would sort some of them out wouldn’t it Plerdsus?

Frankgol,you live in fairyland.An open door policy will see Australia become another third world poverty trap,just like the countries from which they are escaping.Too much crime,corruption and lack of discipline.

To follow your philosopy will see your grand children seeking refuge in the USA or Canada.

I've been trying and trying to find some sort of valid reason why either government thought this harebrained, logic-defying scheme was a good idea. Is their some back-room secret deal or ulterior motive that as least would make this deal make sense? I can imagine what it would be. It reads like a theory cooked up by some embassy staffers half way through a bender with their counterparts in Washington.

That the prospect of a ticket to the US would serve as a disincentive to attempt to illegally come to Australia is to completely misunderstand the fact that the majority of illegal immigrants and refugees - economic or otherwise, are not driven to seek a new life in Australia as such, but a new life in the 'West'. Australia just happened to be closest.

Perhaps the government could fund the screening of Michael Moore's documentaries in the primary countries of origin of Australia's illegal immigrants, then perhaps this scheme might have a chance. ;-)

One could be very suspicious that this “swap of refugees” is just a noble attempt to internationalize own population by growing up new sort of ghettos for newly coming in advance biologically inferior in Australia, or less attached to local ethnic mafias in the USA – if any of these self-called refugees to be exchanged between countries at all.

Relatively close Pacific regional US-Australia proximity and possible relations of visa-seekers to a particular state could perhaps be considered with agreement itself rather commented by than published in the media.

Arjay

An intellectual and emotional challenge for you. Can you quote any words in any of my posts where I advocate an open door policy? Of course you can't, because they don't exist. And they don't exist because I believe in a humane and enlightened refugee policy which - believe it or not - is not the same as an open door policy.

Why do people like you think that anyone who has ideas that are different to yours must hold an extreme position? It might surprise you, but some of us are actually rational and moderate in our views.

There are more intellectually honest ways of confronting opinions that are different from yours other than resorting to caricature and cliches.

OLO sometimes gives me great ammusement. Frank gets stuck into arjay. Saying "There are more intellectually honest ways of confronting opinions that are different from yours other than resorting to caricature and aliches"

Have a look at your previous post Frank. Is it not full of caricatures and cliches? Plerdus never said or intimated any of the things you rave on about.

Come on Frank, an old stager like you could not seriously be offended by what Arjay said. Your feigned offence is obvious especially when viewed with your previous post. The hypocracy is dripping everywhere.

In relation to what Plerdsus said. I wouldn't use the word thrilled but thought it good that we had at last taken strong action the day our troops off loaded the "invaders" from the Tampa onto our navy ship. My good thoughts were short lived however as within a few months the "invaders' began to enter Aus from Nauru.

To my mind those that try to enter Aus illigally are "invaders" and must be detered. Those that the Tampa picked up should never have been allowed into Aus at all, and indeed some should have been tried for hyjacking the Tampa. But we are far too soft and our generosity is taken advantage of. Make no mistake, it was the, to be expected, sinking of the SIEX X that stopped the boats coming.

I also disagree with the proposed exchange of illegals with the USA. Mainly because I do not see any deterant or advantage for us. Just giving invaders a holiday flight across the Paciffic. Waste of money

Banjo
I wasn’t offended by Arjay, and I didn’t feign offence. So I don’t know why you accuse me of ‘hypocracy’ [sic]. Are you sure you’re not confusing me with plerdsus or Arjay with plerdsus?

I’m interested in a reasonable argument but I like my antagonist to use some facts to support their position – otherwise we just read blind opinion (Arjay: “Too much crime, corruption and lack of discipline.” Plerdsus: “Withdraw from the 1954 Refugee Convention. Reinstate the Dictation Test”). It’s also deceitful to claim I have a position on a topic when I don’t (Arjay).

I’m afraid I belong to an old-fashioned school of thought that believes it’s indecent and offensive to be “thrilled” by people’s misfortunes and tragedies (plerdsus). Even you, Banjo, said you wouldn’t choose that word.

But it is improper and intellectually slip-shod to use inflammatory words like “illegals” - and worse - “invaders” to describe asylum seekers. These are the sorts of false descriptors favoured by politicians out to secure their own power by generating fear and anxiety among gullible Australians.

There is an antidote to bigotry: reading some intellectually honest books on the topic such as:
Peter Mares, ‘Borderline’ (UNSW Press 2002)
Mungo MacCallum, ‘Girt By Sea: Australia, the Refugees & the Politics of Fear’ (QE 2002)
David Marr & Marion Wilkinson, ‘Dark Victory’ (Allen & Unwin 2003)
Frank Brennan, ‘Tampering with Asylum: a Universal Humanitarian Problem’ (UQP 2003)
The Senate ‘Select Committee on a Certain Maritime Incident’, Commonwealth Government 2002)
Robert Manne & David Corlett, ‘Sending Them Home: Refugees and the New Politics of Indifference’ (QE 2004) and
Tony Kevin, ‘A Certain Maritime Incident: The Sinking of SIEV X (Scribe 2004).

Or an oldie but goodie on logical thought:
Stuart Chase, ‘Guides to Straight and Crooked Thinking' (Phoenix House 1959).

Frankgol,
It is amazing how you can talk about intellectual honesty after you have just been caught out doing the same deceitfull things to Plerdsus as you accuse Arjay of doing. Except yours was to a far greater extent. In intellectual circles that is known as hypocricy (spelling correct?) which discredits the hypocritic person.

Still this tends to confirm my belief that those supporting a far looser attitude to "invaders" will say anything to promote their cause. Honesty is not one of their traits. Once caught out an honest person would admit guilt and slink away.

If you think Arjay was deceitfull to you, don't you think that you were even much more deceitfull to Plerdsus?

By the way, I think "invaders" is a reasonable term to describe those former refugees that leave a place of safety to invade another country illegally for economic gain.

These invaders should not be allowed appeals and not allowed to stay here at our expense for long periods. They should get one go at establishing their bona fides and if failed they are out.

Frank, trying to maintain the high moral ground does not become you.

Banjo,

You still can't spell 'hypocrisy' nor, it seems, do you even know what it means. The only thing I have been 'caught out' doing is asking for evidence in support of the wild claims that have been made.

Your use of the term 'invaders' in this context is ludicrous - about as appropriate as your use of 'hypocrisy' - unless you're one of those people who think words can carry any meaning you wish to give them. If people are going to have a reasonable discussion, they've got to use words in a reasonable manner.

Agree with Frank Gol. Bizarre and weird and think severalother posters have proven most dishonest in their ad hominems on that poster.
Only Howard and the US rulers, of ALL humanity could summon the Chutzpah to enact such a crude denial of human rights.
The US regularly welcomes right wing Cubans fleeing the Castro government. Yet it oppresses those fleeing from its satellite Haiti, a failed, starving and brutalised state now for generations.
The sheer crudity of shifting Haitians and other victims of other Latin American banana republics propped up by the US under the carpet via the "Pacific Solution" is only matched by Howard's gall in "offshoring" hapless Afghanis, Sri Lankans, West Papuans, Philipino dissidents and Iraqis and Palestinians, all uncomfortable reminders of US and Australian policy failure in this region, to "their" Concentration camp; Gitmo!
And don't give me the "immigration' line, anymore. I fell for plausible deniability after Tampa, but the truth finally outing about Iraq, the crude antics of DIMIA over time and the abuse of 457 visas to import cheap offshore labour to undermine local workers, have all convinced me of the hypocrisy and incorrigibility of the current government.

Understanding perfectly a need for protection and practically assuming one’s will for a better life and opportunities could hardly suggest that those seeking asylum rather than mere economical gains, makes their ways as far as in Australia.

Therefore, seeking better opportunities is not an asylum-seeker