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.