The overwhelming opinion of the Australian public has long suggested that the Commonwealth Government should cease to be a signatory to UN refugee policies. Australian interests, and those of nearby neighbours, may be better served by a multi-lateral agreement within the local region. Most Australians seem to agree that all people entering Australia by any means, who then claim refugee status, should be promptly transported to a location that is not in Australia or its territories. There also seems to be general agreement that no type of visa should ever be issued to these persons because of a likely risk of abscondment.

Banjo: "the reason they attract media and peoples attention is simply because they are frauds, liars and cheats"

The boat arrivals attracted a lot of attention in the Howard years. But most of them were not as you describe - so that could not have been the reason.

rpg: "They get to Indonesia, we are told, mostly by airtravel"

I went looking to see if this was true of the current crop. Googling only turned up posts like yours. Can you give me a link?

That aside, Indonesia's and Australia's border security setups are very different. For a start landing in anything but a well secured airport over here is well neigh impossible, and we don't accept bribes.

Divergence: "You might also think of the Cornelia Rau case here."

Actually, it is an excellent example because it illustrates how lax the Brits were for a while. We eventually found Cornelia Rau's papers. The Brits have no idea how many came into the country - let alone who they were. We have a relatively well run border. We actually police it. The Brits didn't for a long while.

Divergence: "But Rostami can't be removed"

What to do in that case is the discussion you have after you have decided someone is here illegally. This is not that discussion. This is ultimately a discussion about whether we remain signatories to the UNHCR and allow some people in, or whether we instead just declare unexpected arrivals illegal.

socratease: "We need to process them all VERY CAREFULLY."

Indeed. But this is normal - some dislocated Germans were Nazi's. We knew to expect that when we signed UNHCR, and since we did sign it we can't refuse all Tamils just because there may (will?) be some LTTE war criminals hiding among them.

dovif2: "I cannot believe there are still clueless people, who thinks we should encourage people to come to Australia by illegal means"

Not clueless. Just aware we agreed to do just that when we signed the UNHCR. That includes Howard who chose to remain a signatory despite his grandstanding on the issue.

rstuart, I remind you that the 1951 Convention is voluntary,
for there is no international court that enforces it.

In the case of the 78, even under the Convention we have
no obligation to take these people.

As I have stated many times, the UN Convention is 60
years out of date and needs updating, to close the many
loopholes.

Even the UNHCR concedes that most people applying under
asylum laws in places like Europe, are in fact economic
migrants.

Banjo says: "the reason they attract … attention is simply because they are frauds, liars and cheats"

RStuart (hereafter abbreviated to RS) responds: “The boat arrivals attracted a lot of attention in the Howard years. But most of them were not as you describe”

How was Stuart able to arrive at the conclusion that Banjo’s description was wrong ?
Now , let me guess… they must have been bona fide refugees since our STRINGENT PROCESSES passed them ---don’t make me laugh!

Yabby: "rstuart, I remind you that the 1951 Convention is voluntary, for there is no international court that enforces it."

I am proud to be a citizen of a country that honours its promises, Yabby. Australia promised to implement the 1951 UN Refugee Convention on on 22 January 1954, which is when we ratified it.

We are not forced to continue with this promise. We can withdraw from it any time by just saying so publicly. So far we have not done that, and until we do I think we are obliged to implement the convention as written. Mind you, we could probably implement the convention anyway we choose, provided we again said we were going to do that publicly. I think that was the basis of Ken Parish's proposal.

Yabby: "Dumb is the right word, if Australia gives in to being blackmailed, as in this case."

We aren't being blackmailed by the refugees, Yabby. That implies the refugees on the boat are threatening us with something. They aren't. If anybody is taking advantage of us this time it is Indonesia. We did Indonesia a favour and rescued people in their territorial waters - and they effectively refuse to let the them land. What is with that?

Actually, I'll tell you what is with that - it is pay back. Under the Howard government, if we found boat people in international waters we would toe them to Indonesia's territorial waters and leave them only enough fuel to get to the Indonesian mainland. Or at least so Alexander Downer said on Radio National this morning.

*I am proud to be a citizen of a country that honours its promises, Yabby.*

That is very sweet of you Rstuart. But when the law becomes an ass,
its time to change the law. We update our tax code and other laws
regularly, the same should apply to the UN 51 Convention.

*We aren't being blackmailed by the refugees, Yabby. That implies the refugees on the boat are threatening us with something. They aren't.*

We certainly are, Rstuart. They refuse to get off our boat, even
though we saved their lives, ungrateful buggers. They are threatening
to stay there and keep it hostage, until we grant them a trip to
Aus. That is blackmail in anyones terms.

The Indonesians are not stopping the people from getting off the boat.

Cart them back to Sri Lanka I say. Blackmail is not acceptable

*Mind you, we could probably implement the convention anyway we choose, provided we again said we were going to do that publicly*

Exactly, and that is what we should be doing.