*The argument that stopping boats will save lives is a complete furphy. The exact opposite is the case. Stopping boats causes death and misery.*

Not so Bronwyn, but perhaps the argument is just over your head :)

For letting boats in, encourages even more boats, which means even
more risk.

But I know, I know. As a bleeding and compassionate heart, you've
pointed out that rational thought should not interfere with
emotion.

Fact is that there are 1 billion people or more, doing it tough in
the third world and we can't take them all. The system of first
boat past the post, is an incredibly unfair method of selecting refugees
that we do take. One would think that you as a woman with
children you would be concerned about that, but as a tv bleeding heart,
perhaps they are not showing you enough of the pictures of those
refugees in camps, missing out, who don't have two cents to bribe
anyone.

Bronwyn, its a sweet and caring heart that you have, but totally
illogical.

Ludwig must be gratified that at last his trolling has reeled in a few of his hateful and/or heartless cohorts. At least Yabby's consistent in his view that the 1951 Convention is out of date - although of course until such time that it is modified or until Australia withdraws from it, we are legally bound to accept bona fide refugees who claim asylum in Australian territory.

Jayb and Bazz are talking bulldust, of course. It doesn't matter how much money people have paid to escape, nor how many countries through which they pass that are not signatories to the UN Convention, so long as they fit the UN definition of a refugee they are entitled by international law to seek asylum in countries such as Australia that are signatories to the Convention.

Mind you, all of this demonising of boat people is a complete furphy and distraction from the much larger problem of visa overstayers, illegal immigrants and government policies designed to promote population growth.

Finally, I'll repeat the point that Ludwig ignored earlier - why does he focus on a relative handful of boat people when Australia's population is being increased - legally and illegally - at a much higher rate by so many more immigrants who arrive by more conventional means?

CJ Morgan,
Why is it if you arrive in Australia by air without visa or
even if you do have a visa and they think you intend to work contary
to the visa you have you are sent back but not if you arrive by sea ?

You are right, the biggest rort is the study visa. The govt is remiss
in not checking the validity of a number of the so called schools.

Never the less if you are to take immigrants then if you do not
control it you will have that image of a 10,000 ton ship arriving in Italy
with standing room only arriving in Darwin or somewhere.

this thread has brought out the usual bunch of leftist White-haters as Ludwig is accused of meanspiritedness, racism, xenophobia, refugee-bashing and hillbillyism (made that last term up), while I detected none of this in his posts. Maybe the haters can point out to me where he acted in these accused manners. More likely they can't.
Rather than sensibly debate the subject, they attack those who dare to have a different view from their pinko feel-good pipe-dreams. They just love to shove their On-Line-Opinion down other throats.
I look forward to some insults from the 'usual suspects' as I, too, dare to hold a different view. So, come on you jokes!

Yabby

<< For letting boats in, encourages even more boats, which means even more risk. >>

Granted, there's a small element of truth in this but it's the push factors, not the pull factors, which predominantly determine the numbers arriving at any one time. Even though there's a spike at present, it's still a trickle compared to what's happening elsewhere and not in any danger of becoming the deluge that you and Ludwig worry your little heads about. The Indian Ocean will always act as a vast natural barrier to most asylum seekers.

<< But I know, I know. As a bleeding and compassionate heart, you've pointed out that rational thought should not interfere with emotion. >>

Bl..dy hell, Yabby. Where did I say that? I agree, my argument that immigration policy should not increase the level of pain and hardship suffered by asylum seekers is one based on empathy and compassion, something I'd suggest doesn't trouble you very often. But, it's also a rational argument. Sending asylum seekers back to danger and death is not making the world any safer. Besides, it creates resentment towards Australia which will eventually have negative repercussions.

<< ... as a tv bleeding heart, perhaps they are not showing you enough of the pictures of those refugees in camps, missing out, who don't have two cents to bribe anyone. >>

I'm very familiar with the horror of refugee camps, Yabby, and have often described it here on OLO. You're completely deluded if you think it's fairer to send back those who've already arrived on our doorstep, quite probably to their deaths, and to then take in those from camps instead. There's no queue and contrary to what you say bribing of officials is rife. Those who get out of camps are not necessarily those who've been there the longest, but those who can pay off the right people. There's nothing fair about any of that, but then you aren't really interested in fairness. You're selfishly preoccupied with guarding your own patch and to hell with the rest.

Oops MAJOR ERRATUM (wrong version posted.) My last paras should have read (need more coffee)
>>"Pursuant to your penultimate complaint I suspect you are under estimating "desperate people doing desperate things". Remember people were known to be hung for stealing a loaf of bread yet it didn't stop stealing. In short deterrents have never worked against desperate people.

Aren't the only criminals here the traffickers not the refugees. Punish the right culprits. Change the reason the refugees left.
Imprisoning them for doing what ISN'T ILLEGAL is a bit like beating a wayward dog once it returns,then wondering why it won't respond to us in the future or even hates us."<<

Yabby
Why do you always revert to 'put downs' to make a point? Either they are strong enough to stand on their own or they're probably wrong.

Given the above correction perhaps you can show me where in history deterrents against desperate people has worked?

What about the international law/treaties, are you suggesting we should thumb our noses against them?

Are you happy about the probable consequences of primary industry trade retaliation and worse?

True you and I might not see the consequences but our children probably will.

I'm sorry old boy but this is 21st century and it's far more nuanced than the 1960's 'Fortress Australia' mentality.