SHOCK HORROR.....

Foxy says...

If they are accepted as refugees -
my suggestion is
they should be asked to sign a minimum
ten year contract (to act as a deterent)
to live and work in
designated rural areas instead of allowing
them to disappear into urban communities.

Wow.. and I agree 100%.. now.. all you need do is apply this newfound common sense and patriotism to 'other' groups :)

I would add one extra Foxy.. -That the contract include a proviso as follows;

If they engage in political activity.. demonstrations.. and protests related to overseas conflicts... OUT you go..there's a good boy and girl..OUT OUT OUT.

Foxy and Benq,
My solution is simple. Do not give them what they seek and they will stop coming.

Yes the Pacific solution was Howards first step. then christmas island was set up as an alternative. But the main factor that stopped the attempts was that they could no longer get permanent residence. Permanent residence unables them to then bring out others in the 'family reunion' catagory. That is why, in the main, the recent arrivals have been young men. Once here they can bring other family out by 747.

Look at the figures objectively, the boats stopped coming when permanent residence was withdrawn, the boats started again when permanent residence was promised.

Another solution could be to stop giving 'permanent residents' the right to sponsor others under family reunion catagory. This would impact on other legitimate immigrants , but I am in favour of reducing immigration anyway.

Australia should gain from immigration. At present the only ones to gain are the immigrants them selves.

Foxy,
The reason an instant determination can be made in relation to those that arrive here by air, without proper visas, is because we have information as to their nationality and where they embarked.

So simple, no valid visa , no entry.

The illegal boat people destroy their papers so we cannot establish who they are or their nationality. Other countries will not take back people unless we have proof of nationality.

They fly to Malaysia, then travel to Indonesia where they board the boats. They are coached in what to tell our officials on arrival. I know you would not lie, but these people are selfish enough to say anything to get their way.

There really is something positive that can be achieved through immigration, regardless of whether or not immigrant status is deemed legal or not.

There is no question that immigrants are determined to do well in Australia, they embrace education, are focused, family oriented, determined to develop and are industrious. Let’s face it; any opportunities Australia has to offer socially, economically and prospectively are better than what they have left behind.

Why don’t we process them quickly, primarily for security, skills and health, empty the detention and immigration centre’s and move them to remote communities on a work for benefits principle for say three years?

The immigrants get the opportunities they seek, they get paid for their contributions until they get employment, they contribute to the development of remote communities by applying their skills in building, education and small business development. Our indigenous communities benefit from immigrant skills, determination, participation and educational opportunities. Australia benefits by seeing a single program that focuses on the better application of Federal funding of all types including housing development.

Sounds like a win / win to me.

Dear Spindoc, Banjo, and others,

Farmers are complaining that they need workers
fo stay afloat. We need roads to be built,
(when will the Hume to Sydney ever be finished?),
and heaps more to be done. I was suggesting mandatory
contracts be signed, and they be moved to
designated rural areas - for the work that
desperately needs to be done. As Spindoc says,
boat people could help towards buidling industries
in rural communities and Aboriginal communities.
It would be a win/win situation indeed. Much
better than going back to the "Pacific Solution"
which failed miserably - cost a fortune ($1 billion
over 5 years) and 90% Temporary Protection Visa
holders ended up with permanent visas anyway.

There is no chance of Kevin Rudd backing down on boat people, and it is for the same core reason Kev wanted a carbon tax. That core reason is a "track record" to take with him to the U.N. when touting for his next job, we are just a stepping stone for Kev, and he will not protect our interests over his own.