Several commentators to this topic seem conflict addicted. I challenge those individuals to include an email address with their next post so they can go hammer and tongs at each other at a frequency not limited to two posts every 24 hours.

Yabby: "Here is one link of what the story was about"

My point was that we would find it difficult to send back anyone who has lived among us for 3 years. From http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1361074.htm I see they were here only 7 months, and were told at the start they would be unconditionally sent back, yet the resulting outcry forced us to give 150 permanent residency. And you tell me it will be easy to send them back if they stay 5 times longer?

Yabby: "Its just numbers you are arguing about, not principle."

My principles were about daemonising refugees, about claims we are being taken for suckers, about you saying everybody who disagrees with you is weak/emotional, about keeping with international agreements we ratified, about sticking with verifiable facts rather then fantasy's dreamt up to support a position, and about suggestions having to work within those constraints. It was never about the principle of having to reject refugees. Long ago I agreed with you that will have to happen in the end. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3171#75297

You on the other hand seem to find it very easy to ditch those principles if they get in the way of whatever hobby house you are riding on the day.

Yabby: "The UNHCR knows very well that is virtually impossible to prove that somebody does not fear something."

Fortunately fearing something is not sufficient for them to be a refugee, otherwise we would be forced to accept every paranoid schizophrenic on the planet that applied. To quote from http://www.unhcr.org/3d58e13b4.pdf :

"it is not only the frame of mind of the person concerned that determines his refugee status, but that this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation".

The phrase "must be supported" means the onus is on them to prove it. If they can't prove it, eg because they threw away their papers, then we can reject them. At times I get the impression you are saying people can rock up on our shores claiming to be a refugee, and we can't disprove it we must accept them. The truth is the reverse.

Native,
Oh Omego I feel your pain but what can I do.
I offered to meet senor Stuart at noon in the square, many times, to settle this once and for all
Weapons of his choosing –si senor, even hammer an tongs
But what he do, he runs away.
Well he can run like a jack rabbit but he no can hide.
He’s wanted both north and south of the border and I mean to bring him in –dead or alive

Look what he write just now:
“The phrase "must be supported" means the onus is on them to prove it. If they can't prove it, eg because they threw away their papers, then we can reject them. At times I get the impression you are saying people can rock up on our shores claiming to be a refugee, and we can't disprove it we must accept them. The truth is the reverse.”

He must have been smoking that loco –weed again.
Ether that, or he’s been bitten by a Gila monster.
One crazy hombre.

*yet the resulting outcry forced us to give 150 permanent residency.*

Ah of course rstuart. Our officials would not want an "outcry", so
just give in and it solves it, the easy option. I admit, city
Aussies have become piss weak.

* but that this frame of mind must be supported by an objective situation".*

Wow, that sounds so tough rstuart :) Let me see. I am Hazara,
the Pashtuns are after me, I am Tamil, the Singalese are after
me, I am Afghan, the Taliban are after me, I am an athiest, they
are all after me, I am gay, so persecuted in an Islamic State,
etc.

Not hard at all rstuart. Now you disprove my claims or accept
my appeal for asylum, or we'll take it to court, where my clever
lawyer will fix it. I want my cushy Aussie visa after all.

*If they can't prove it, eg because they threw away their papers, then we can reject them*

Nope rstuart, you have to prove that they are lying, for an asylum
seeker does not need papers. I can claim to be somebody else, you
need to prove it.

*about claims we are being taken for suckers,*

Well of course we are being taken for suckers. They hijack our
ship, our PM fastracks their settlement in Australia, to get them
out of his hair.

Meantime if I was desperate and hijacked a ship or plane, they
would throw me in jail!

Yabby: "I admit, city Aussies have become piss weak."

Spin aside, so now do you agree we will end up taking refugees TPV's in? It is a bit hard to argue really, because that is what we did do.

Yabby: "you have to prove that they are lying"

You have a link to prove we must rely on their word alone if we lack other evidence? In other words you aren't making this up as you go along, are you? I find it hard to square your claim with the fact that we have taken up to 2 years to verify some claims.

Yabby: "Now you disprove my claims or accept my appeal for asylum, or we'll take it to court, where my clever lawyer will fix it"

We prevent access to lawyers and media http://www.safecom.org.au/royal-commission.htm

Even if we assume what you say is correct and if all else fails we just take their word for it, surely the fix is simply reject those cases - not reject all simply because we can't verify a few.

Yabby: "They hijack our ship"

Only for some warped definition of hijack. Look up a dictionary. When you hijack something you forcibly control of it, typically to steal cargo or to redirect it. The boat people refused to get off when asked. Force wasn't used, they didn't take control of the vessel, they steal anything and they didn't force it do go somewhere else.

Of course you know all this, but persist with lie anyway.

In an earlier post, in response to 'socratease' prediction of "the time when because of global warming people from devasted low-lying areas of the world suddenly flee in vast numbers to Australia", with the question "Don't we have a moral responsibility to form humane policies of discriminatory handling of the situation?", I wrote:

If a sea level rise creates refugees, here's a plan:

1. The Commonwealth will establish an arrangement with the governments of only those threatened Pacific islands closest to Australia for the orderly arrival and settlement of refugee populations.

2. The Commonwealth will use its External Affairs powers to designate where the settlers will initially be placed with provision for ongoing health, welfare, education and employment by arrangement with the States.

3. The Commonwealth will establish an arrangement for the safe transfer of all other irregular arrivals to a designated United Nations refugee facility in another country.

4. The Commonwealth will refuse future entry into Australia to all those it has transferred to a UN facility.

Any comments? What say you 'Horus'?