*As if the movement of 10,000 refugees would make a gnats testicles difference to anything.*

Examinator, you just can't help yourself! I really think that the
main points of this debate, are clearly beyond you.

We are not running the "old boys woodwork club" here, but discussing
the policies and their implementation, of a nation. So principles
matter, fairness matters, consistency matters etc.

Give me a reason why boat people should have preference over
those who can't afford to be boat people and are stuck in refugee
camps around the world? It seems to me that your wearing your
heart on your sleeve, simply overwhelms any sense of justice.

If you think that our refugee intake should be increased, you and
other Australians are free to make that case to Govt and the people.
Ludwig is correct, he has made exactly that case before, it seems
that others like Bronwyn simply don't read what he has clearly
stated before and so have I.

My point again. All refugees should be treated the same, first
boat past the line is not a fair or just way of deciding things.
Justice and fairness matter, consistency matter, when it comes
to Govt policy, as distinct from your woodwork club.

Next point, deterrents do in fact work. If there were no deterrents
for murder, rape of theft, believe me, a great deal more of them
would take place. People act in their own self interest and if
no boat people were accepted, they would stop trying. All that
our present Govt policy has done is encourage them, for the Aussie
cushy lifestyle is not far away, if they can pull it off.

So the solution is quite straightforward. Shut the trade down,
so that it pays nobody to sail here. Pay Indonesia to run a
refugee centre for all those who do try and are sent back. They
will have the same rights in terms of coming to Australia, as all
other refugees in refugee camps around the world.

Bronwyn,
Talk about need for sleep---judging by the arguments/evidence
you’ve offered, I think you’ve been asleep at the wheel for quite some time now.[LQTM]

---Re “There is no requirement in international law for [Illegal’s] to seek asylum in the first country”
There is no legal requirement –but there is an older, stronger, COMMON SENSE requirement.
If their motivation was genuine fear of persecution: a push factor --one could reasonable expect them to shelter in the first safe haven they came to.And, I would think, in most peoples eyes (though not yours, of course!) their credibility would suffer if they were seen to window shop for the most affluent safe haven.

---As for the unseaworthiness of the boats – you’re right about their status, but wrong about the causes – the boats were likely seaworthy at time of leaving port –but, funnily enough, boats have a way of becoming unseaworthy, if someone pours petrol over their decks and sets them alight, or goes after the engine with a hammer --- which is another reason why the perpetrators of such acts might rightly be called illegals.

---As for The Tampa story– there are a couple of chapters you skipped – the parts where the rescuees became the rogues and used threats of violence against the captain & crew to force the captain to take them in the direction of OZ rather than Indonesia, which is where he initially was going .I know these chapters are almost always left out in the progressives account of events, but they are a very important part of the story nevertheless ---and, yet another reason why they might rightly be termed, illegal

Examinator,
--Re “These camps are awful places “ ---I am sure they are . But if escape from awfulness was sufficient to qualify for entry to OZ -- half the world could roll up here -- and would, if Bronwyn had her way!

I would hazard a guess that most countries in the world are –awful places –when compared to OZ .

Which might be why an awful lot of Orientals and others are trying awfully hard to learn how to cook offal in artful ways, or why, others try awfully hard to orchestrate awe inspiring coiffure --because they have been told it will win them OZ residency.

And that is also probably why, a lot of such auspiring stayers like to peddle stories of awful racist attacks –since they have been sold on the idea that it may assist their case for residency: they must impress upon us the awfulness of their situation – and too right( though, actually, they were all too left) all the ee-aws were impressed –awfully impressed.

But, I do digress ,back to the issue.

Awfulness: if experience of awfulness was a pratique –some of the less privileged in OZ– might decide to come and squat on your(or Bronwyn’s ) lawn, or in your( or Bronwyn’s) garage , since your emplacements’ are less awful than theirs. Actually, it might be a awfully good as it would give you and Bronwyn a much needed wake up call – no more zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz thinking! [LOL

Police report states that the SIEV 36 was deliberately set on fire by one of the passengers.

Why am I not surprised?

Just another demonstration of the selfishness of these illegal aliens.

They will cheat, lie, bribe and callously endanger the lives of all passengers and our service personel, so they can force themselves on us.

Then we reward them with permanent residency!

Yabby

<< Ludwig is correct, he has made exactly that case before, it seems that others like Bronwyn simply don't read what he has clearly stated ... >>

Ludwig and I agreed in our very first OLO discussion about asylum-seekers that Australia should accept more. We agreed that Australia's humanitarian intake should be increased to between twenty and thirty thousand and that its general migration intake should be scaled right back to near zero. Our point of difference relates to Ludwig's obsession with 'stopping the boats'.

<< All refugees should be treated the same, first boat past the line is not a fair or just way of deciding things. >>

There's no fairness in confining refugees to waiting helplessly in squalid and overcrowded refugee camps. There's no queue for them to wait in. Most wait in these camps for years on end and for many it's decades on end and they quite correctly fear they'll live out their lives in these camps. I wouldn't do it if I was them. Nor would you. You're not interested in asylum seekers being treated fairly and justly, Yabby, so cut the pretence.

<< Next point, deterrents do in fact work. If there were no deterrents for murder, rape of theft, believe me, a great deal more of them would take place. >>

It's well documented that people in desperate circumstances rarely pay heed to the harsh penalty that might befall them if caught. Likewise, asylum-seekers in desperate life-and-death situations aren't necessarily going to be put off by tough deterrence policies.

<< So the solution is quite straightforward. Shut the trade down, so that it pays nobody to sail here. >>

Yeah, let's put a sign up, hey Yabby. That should do the trick. The whole crux of our discussion here is that 'shutting down the trade' in effect means sending asylum seekers to their deaths. Neither you nor Ludwig have explained yet how we can 'stop the boats' without exacting a huge cost in lives and misery. I think Ludwig at least cares about this dilemma, but I doubt you do.

*There's no fairness in confining refugees to waiting helplessly in squalid and overcrowded refugee camps. There's no queue for them to wait in*

Bronwyn, its reality for 20 million. If you really cared about them,
which you seemingly don't, you would propose an efficient refugee
intake system, with the surplus funds, now wasted, going to improve
conditions for those 20 million. Many Australians might agree with
you. I certainly would and no doubt Ludwig would too.

I have told you how to shut the trade down. People are not going
to risk tens of thousands of Dollars, if their chance of success is
zero and is known to be zero.

*You're not interested in asylum seekers being treated fairly and justly, Yabby, so cut the pretence.*

Bronwyn I suggest that you cut your stupidity and arrogance. Just
because I propose that money is spent wisely, efficiently, to help
the most people, you are claiming to know what I am thinking.
Brownwyn, cut the stupidity, my point is seemingly going over your
head.

*The whole crux of our discussion here is that 'shutting down the trade' in effect means sending asylum seekers to their deaths*

Rubbish. Billions of people live in the third world, they are
not all dying due to living there. 20 million live in Iraq,
the same number in Afghanistan. The reality is, they can't
all live in Australia. You are welcome to put your case to Govt
to increase refugees from camps, but the fact remains that the
boat trade is a hugely wasteful use of resources, its unfair and
its time it ended. There is only one way to do that. Shut it down
and treat all refugees the same