rstuart,
Those on board the Oceanic Viking claim to 'have registered' with the UNHCR, which is not the same as being approved as refugees. If they have been approved by the UNHCR, there is little doubt that they would meet our criteria for same. In that case they could easily fly by commercial air to Aus and seek asylum on arrival. Cheaper than paying a smuggler.

Bronwyn,
I continue to depict the illegal boat people as frauds because all the evidence shows that, not because I have any pre-determined hatred for them. For example, it is well known that most fly to Malaysia and they require passports and visas to do that. That being so, and if they are truely refugees, they could obtain a visa and fly to Aus and seek asylum on arrival. We dispence about 10 million visas a year , so visas are available.

If they are truely refugees, to fly here and then seek asylum would be cheaper, faster and much safer. The big catch for them is that, knowing they are unlikely to qualify as refugees, we would be able to send them back because we have verification as who they are and their citizenship.

So they go the long, back way and destroy their identities, etc. Their intent is to deceive.

Bronwyn, I frankly could not give a stuff what you think of
Paul Sheehan or his opinions. What he did do is quote some
numbers, as factual information. Now either that information
is correct or is not correct. Calling him names, is not
going to disprove the figures I'm afraid.

Asylum seekers are clearly not so silly as to implicate themselves
as having rorted the system, that would be foolish. They do
however commonly have a better knowledge then people like you do,
about what has gone on amongst other members of their community.
Some will in fact admit to the rorts, when questioned further.

What amazes me on this topic, is the sheer gullibility of people
like yourself. Either it's that, or you are pushing your own
propaganda at any cost.

Any public system, where people stand to make big gains if they
rort it, will be rorted if the laws allow it. That is why the
tax laws and other laws need regular updating, people find loopholes
and jump through them, when it is in their self interest to do so.

Yet for some reason you seem to want to deny this, when it applies
to so called refugees. Were they struck by lightning perhaps,
to change common human behaviour? Come on Bronwyn, get real!

*the Greens are the nation's conscience*

More like an assembly of the limp left, emotionally engulfed.

What amazes me on this topic Yabby is the sheer gullibility of people such as you and Banjo. How you stereotype ALL boat people as wealthy frauds, who choose to live for up to 15 years in concentra - - - - - - oops, I mean "holiday" camps in 3rd world countries, while all the time they could be living the good life back where they came from.

In "REALITY" though, it's pretty obvious you 2 don't believe the inaccurate propaganda you write (surely NOBODY could be THAT gullible), so it can only be assumed your opposition to boat people is merely ideologically based. There's just a handful of people here who display a fear of boat people, and when one reads their posts it's clear their opposition to specifically boat people is based on IDEOLOGY and political spin. Those handful of people are not as stupid as they appear, they know EXACTLY what they're doing when they write their * * SPIN * *.

>>Any public system, where people stand to make big gains if they
rort it, will be rorted if the laws allow it. That is why the
tax laws and other laws need regular updating, people find loopholes
and jump through them, when it is in their self interest to do so.<<

Yabby,

The equation is this: either enforce the laws so tightly that no unexpected arrival is allowed to enter Australian territory, including legitimate asylum seekers or relax the situation somewhat so that legitimate asylum seekers can get into the country with some hangers-on that undoubtedly exist. Australia has done the latter over the past 2-3 decades, which I think reflects well on our wealth and maturity as a nation.

So, of the two options above, which one would you pick, and why?

RobP, that is an intelligent and very fair question, which is a
welcome change on this thread. So I'll try and explain my
answer and why:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-real-reasons-for-asylum-seeker-arrivals-20091106-i0j3.html

suggests that if you look at the data a little bit objectively,
both sides of politics are wrong, there are push and pull factors
at work.

The net result of that, is highly confusing law and an unsatisfactory
solution, no matter which way you look at it. We tell people we
will treat them humanely and try to do so, next minute we fight
them off with sticks, when they try to sail here. So neither of
your choices is going to solve it and the present, hopeless situation
will continue.

Meantime huge resources are thrown at this problem to shuffle it along
without solving it, so pensioners, taxpayers etc are outraged. It
is certainly a vote swinging issue.

So the problem cannot be solved, given the present rules. That is
why my push for plan C, to finally update the UN Convention or its
interpretation, or the way Australia abides by it, for after all,
it is still little more then a voluntary agreement which is 60
years old now.

Close the many present and open loopholes, the net effect will be
more genuine refugees and much less rorting that goes on now,
at much lower expense to the Australian public.

Australians by and large do have a sense of "fairplay" and would
respect any Govt that had the testicles to tackle these issues
head on and finally brought about the required changes, so long overdue.
IMHO it would actually win any Govt quite a few votes.

Banjo

<< Those on board the Oceanic Viking claim to 'have registered' with the UNHCR, which is not the same as being approved as refugees. >>

As I've already stated, thirty-seven of them have definitely had their claims for asylum approved by the UNHCR.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-concerns-for-tamil-asylum-seekers/story-e6frg6no-1225793354709

Do you think they'd be telling the whole world, through their hand written messages, that they've been approved, if they hadn't? They'd know it would destroy their credibility and their chances of resettlement straight away. They wouldn't have come this far to do anything so stupid.

Stop trying to paint these people as fraudsters when you have absolutely no proof.

<< I continue to depict the illegal boat people as frauds because all the evidence shows that ... >>

What evidence?

Yabby

Your solution is totally unworkable. People have always taken to boats to escape desperate situations. That will never change.

If it was possible to stop all boat movement and have all refugees wait patiently in camps, as you insist they should, we would in effect be condemning them to a life sentence. The current average stay is 17 years. If camps were the only option the length of that stay would increase markedly. How can you condemn others to that, just so that we in the West can continue to live our extravagant lifestyle, untroubled by the knocking at our door of people in desperate need.

There is nothing 'fair' about any of that, so stop pretending you're on about fairness.