TZ52HX,(Is that supposed to mean something),
When in government the current opposition had a policy that included the Christmas Island detention and assesment centre, TPVs granted to those assesed as refugees, and it worked the influx of illegal entrants stopped. They had abandoned the 'Pacific solution'. It took some time, progressively toughening the measures until the illegals decided, as they could no longer get what they wanted, it was not worth the cost and risk. So the policy worked and the boats stopped coming.

Until such time as they decide to change that policy, it will remain and as they are not in government there is little need to change.

The government now is the one to have policy that delivers the outcome they want.

By the way I think the illegals are gate crashers, bribers and cheats. Opportunists that are buying their way here and denying genuine refugees a place by pushing their way in. They take advantage of our easy going nature and take us for a soft touch, so I do not have any time for them.

Belly, I am not having a go at you but, as I recall you viewed the previous governments policies as too tough, so how do you view the present governments attempts to put the illegals into Indonesia.

Would you prefer to be held and assesed by Australians at Nauru/Christmas Island or held by Indonesians and assesed by the UNHCR?

Bazz says:

>>Rob P said;
One lot pays our national carrier money and the boatloads don't?
What's your view of people who come here via Qantas ?

Which raises the question, why don't the boat people do the same ?<<

I imagine it boils down to a question of what path is open to people. People that live in cities and that have personal connections in government etc are more likely to have access to obtaining visas and plane tickets. Poorer and less well connected people are more likely to be the opposite, so they go and find someone who can give them a ride to a better place.

>>Are they saying they they are so terrorised that they go to the bank
get the cash or use their credit card to buy an airline ticket after
being to the Australian Embassy in Colombo to get a Visa, then go
to the airport, go through immigration and board the aircraft,
probably to Delhi or Kualalumpur where they board a Qantas flight to
Australia ?
They then claim to be an asylum seeker in fear of their life ? Really?<<

To be fair, there will also be times when people who start out in a relatively good position in their societies will be susceptible to political unrest or persecution when things change. So they can be asylum seekers too. Sifting out the real from the unscrupulous claims, however, is the hard bit. It can be a tough ask for public servants in Canberra to fairly judge the degree of need in the claims that come across their desk.

There's 2 lies that the uneducated minority believe
(1) boat people "queue jump" and deny refugees a place here
(2) the so called 'pacific solution' stopped illegal entry

Can anyone here produce the name of even ONE, I repeat **ONE**, refugee who was in a so called "queue", who was denied asylum because too many boat people were coming here? And provide the full details of this person's rejection?

The so called 'pacific solution' stopped NOTHING. At the time it was instigated the push from overseas decreased because THE CONFLICTS FROM WHICH THEY WERE RUNNING FROM subsided compared to the acute nature of those conflicts BEFORE the Howard policy. The Liberal Party of course does NOT recognise this. Why? For POLITICAL PURPOSES of course. They don't want the trained monkeys who without question believe their spin to think anything else.... THEY NEED THE VOTES. And what better way to keep the party faithful voting their way than to demonise "VISIBLE" asylum seekers. Also, asylum seekers continued to arrive in their THOUSANDS every year, via plane. The disingenuous complainers about asylum seekers have difficulty with "facts".

Now, can anyone provide a rational, **straight** answer to my above two questions?

I'm waiting.

Rob, any people caught in the middle would be processed according to
the Geneva Convention. Under that, they can't pick and choose where
they are processed, or pick and choose their country of choice,
but have to accept what is offered. Fair enough.

2. The Govt got elected on the back of fear of workchoices, not the
Howard refugee policy.

3. The question is about principle, for as we see in Europe and
elsewhere, a trickle can soon turn into a flood. A Govt needs
policies based on principle, they are not organising a chook raffle.

4. People who arrive by plane, have documents, a visa and usually
a return ticket, or they won't get their tourist visa. We know
who they are. If you follow the news, many of the Tamils sailing
for Australia, have already applied and failed in Europe, so are
trying their luck with Australia. IIRC you were the one who mentioned data mining.
That can easily be used to establish that
kind of fact.

As it is, we are a soft touch. When the UNHCR check these people,
their approval rate as genuine is only about half that of the
Australians. Clearly we are more gullible. If you are a Tamil
or a Hazara, your ticket to Australia is assured, even if your
real intentions are economic, aka the cushy West.

Lets make sure that we take genuine refugees who need help, not
country shoppers who want a cushy lifestyle by screwing the system.

Those refugees are hanging out in refugee camps, waiting for our
help. Not so with boat people who pick and choose countries.

Yabby, the last election was decided on a whole raft of issues, not just one issue only.

You also made a point about people arriving by plane: There seems to be something you don't understand, either that or you're deliberately leaving it out (probably because it would neutralise your argument). Surely you're aware that thousands of people who arrive by plane are granted refugee status every year. Are you not aware of this? Surely in day and age you would be. I really can't believe that there's people in this country who don't know this. So why did you leave this out in your comment about planes?

Well as you asked I do not want those 70 odd people behind barbed wire in Indonesea.
we took them in another country's sea by request.
They came and will use the fact we put them aboard our boat to stay, if we let them.
If we do more will come, let them, if only true refugees are let in ok by me.
I think a great union leader has it right, if their color was white , if we knew they are not Muslims, much of the diatribe would die down.
hasbeen is sick of such as me, very well but You highlight bloke your xenophobia.
And I ask you to remember our long dead white Australia policy, we are growing up this rubbish about a flood ignores the evidence put before you more come, they do you know, via our air ports.
20 million refugees are looking for a home world wide do we kill them.
Rudd could help fix life in the country's they flee rather than bribe others but he has to slow them see bigotry can be infectious.