This is quite amusing;
You can tell who takes this issue seriously and who is just sticking to their favorite party;
-The people whose opinion about the plight of refugees has remained largely the same over the past decade- or at least, hasn't magically changed in 2007.
-The people who didn't of course are just a bunch of muppets who can't think of a world outside the simple ideal that their favorite party can do no wrong, and the opposition is the devil itself.

That aside, what isn't so amusing is how some people insinuate that just because someone goes through hardships, that automatically makes them a nice, deserving person to impose upon others.
The Taliban fighters were forced to live in caves because of the coalition forces- does that suddenly make them nice? No.
If a rabid tribal fundamentalist took the boat journey- they would still be a rabid, tribal fundamentalist.

As such- we should check who we are actually letting in- and take pity and give support to people that actually ARE decent- and deport those that are not.

SM,

How am I backing the PM to the hilt?
I said that my preference was to process
these people onshore in Australia.
And if you make sweeping statements about
how the Pacific Solution was superior to
the government's current policy - you have
to provide evidence for that. Your say so
is simply your support of the Liberal Party
to the hilt. The PM's current policy has not
even taken effect yet - so how can you make
judgements on it this early?

Lexi
1) The issue wasn’t whether or not they were criminals. It was whether it was consistent /realistic for advocates to maintain that relatively short periods of detention, with full access to sporting, educational and entertainment facilities and the latest communication systems (including the internet and mobile phones).Here’s a picture of one such “hellhole” : http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/asylum-seekers-luxury-rewards/story-e6frg13u-1226043768220 .Could produce high rates of mental illness in “Asylum seekers”. While persons who had spent longer under detention in our prison system , with in many cases far fewer prospects, had --judging by the advocates total lack of protests for the latter –emerged unscathed.

2)However since you raise the issue of criminality. It is apparent to anyone –other than a diehard bleeding heart. That if the special immunity that “asylum seekers’ seem to enjoy. Which has allowed them to get away with anything short of murder, was removed, and the same standards were applied to them which regularly apply to anyone else who attacks someone with iron bar or burns commonwealth property. Many of the “asylum seekers’ might well be behind bars as common criminals.

Dear SPQR,

From what I recall - those who broke any of our laws
such as rioting, burning buildings, et cetera -
while waiting to be assessed - were immediately
disqualified from being accepted into this country.
A refugee's good character was one of the criteria of
assessment and for being accepted.
The Minister of Immigration made that
quite clear at the time.

Lexi,

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/nauru-lesser-evil-than-malaysia-deal-says-father-frank-brennan/story-e6frf7jx-1226112194561

"HUMAN rights intellectual and lawyer Father Frank Brennan says the Nauru solution could be considered a lesser moral evil than the asylum-seeker swap deal with Malaysia."

I suppose he is a coalition supporter too!

As for those that damaged building at Xmas island, I don't recall any of them being excluded.

Lexi,
<< those who broke any of our laws … were immediately disqualified…The Minister of Immigration made that quite clear at the time>>

As we are seeing, the current govt has promised lot of things which it cannot deliver on – I’ll believe it when I see it

PS: We’re still WAITING on these prosecutions (see my post of Monday, 21 March 2011 5:29:49 AM) here : http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4359#110561