I wonder if this government has any remorse now about softening the stance on the illegal entrants, since obtaining office. I also wonder if those supporting the softer stance now have any regrets.

It seems that those that took the high moral ground, now have much to answer for. But I reckon they will not own up to that.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/pressure-mounts-over-ghost-boats-20110910-1k30r.html

Quote 'The boat is one of eight believed to have sunk between Indonesia, Malaysia and Australia in the past 2½ years. The most recent vanished on November 14 last year with 97 on board after leaving a port near Jakarta. It is believed many more have gone missing and one may have disappeared just before the SIEV 221 smashed into rocks on Christmas Island last December, killing 50'

Funny how the government has kept this quiet, especially after the rukus Labor and the Greens raised about the SIEV X and the wild allegations made at the time.

So has the new policy of luring people to take this voyage resulted in just 200 deaths or more. How many?

Banjo,

It is simple, Labor is hardly going to advertise it, and as they have not "arrived" they are some one else's problem.

SM, a further question, I wonder if through faulty navigation how many
have sailed past Christmas Island without seeing it and sailed off
into the Indian Ocean.
If their course was far enough off they would pass with the Island
below the horizon.

Banjo:

...If people generally wish to embark on a suicide mission involving themselves, women AND children, go for it; but the ultimate responsibility of the outcome, lies entirely at their OWN feet.

…Death on the ocean is a universally sad and tragic event; and includes death from thirst, hunger or exposure adrift; trauma and terror of drowning; terror and pain of being eaten alive by sharks; Machine gunned by pirates, (A threat not uncommon off the shores of New Guinea at the least, to my knowledge), are but SOME causes of death at sea from an extended list.

...Participants in the foolhardy venture of illegally boating to Australian shores, willingly present themselves (and others) as “fodder” for nature and man alike, and must not be supported in the venture by making life easier at the end of the perilous journey, with a reward of solace, given as it is by onshore processing, (forced as the alternative by the High Court ruling against the Malaysian solution).

...Supporters of onshore processing are ignorantly compliant to the continuing tragedies of the boat people (men, women AND children).

…”Full marks” to Gillard and Abbott for their attempts to stop boat arrivals, by making life impossible with un-pleasantries at the end of the boat journey, if this is what it takes to save fools arriving on leaking and overloaded boats from themselves,and risking the lives of their women and children as a consequence, then I support whatever it may take to achieve it 100%.

I thought that Banjo was making the point that although the behaviour of asylum seekers is foolhardy, they behave so because the UN Refugee Convention guarantees that such foolhardiness will greatly increase their chance of gaining asylum. It is a point which attracts little attention, probably because neither party seems interested in abandoning the convention.

So the question remains: Why does the government continue to support a convention which encourages desperate people to risk their lives?

I fully share your concerns Banjo.

I wonder when all the misguided ‘high moral grounders’ are going to see the great folly in their push for onshore processing, no mandatory detention and the rest of the pull factors, and join the call for a decisive shut-down of onshore asylum seeking?

If only these people would direct their goodwill into helping refugees through our formal offshore programs, via an increase in our intake and a bigger expenditure on international aid, instead of things that promulgate the horrible, dangerous, highly stressful, socially disruptive and politically divisive onshore asylum seeking saga.

If only.

I have no time for the illegals that arrive here without approval. In my opinion they are con artists and shonks who are taking advantage of our good nature. Gate crashers!

The previous government took a long time making things tougher for the illegals untill they themselves decided it was not worth the risk and stopped trying to get here. Labor, Greens and other misguided people claimed the measures were 'cruel','inhumane'and other unsavory terms.

Since the present government changed the situation thousands have managed the trip and about 200 was thought to have died trying. Now it seems that far more boats have vanished, so how many more have perished because the tough measures were changed. Some of the missing boats the government actually knew about. The changed policies encouraged these people to their deaths, trying to get here.

If those that objected to the previous measures were open and honest, they would admitt that they were wrong and had the tough measures stayed, all those lives would have been saved. Where now is the compassion, empathy and humanity that they claimed to have a few years ago.

To make matters worse the Greens and some others want more of the boats to come with even softer measures than there is at present. So more and more will attempt the voyage with the very real likelyhood of more vanishing enroute. Oh well, out of sight out of mind, I suppose.

To think some have claimed that I, and a few others here on OLO, were uncaring and lacked empathy. Even branded as racist and xenophobic.

Will these 'refugee advocates' now admitt they were wrong?

'Will these 'refugee advocates' now admitt they were wrong?'

No. Unfortunately their idology is more important than human life.

I will not post the link, it can be found in seconds but Paul Kelly's editorial in todays Australian is top stuff.
Are we fair dinkum?
Flogging Labor or Liberals, about death at sea?
While lawyers and Lefty's have stopped the best plan we ever had to stop the boats.
Is this issue about politics, racism, over population, internal separatism after arrival?
Do we just ignore death at sea has taken place on both sides?
Take my challenge read the Kelly thing.
This country, us, must confront our truths.
The boats must stop, both sides of politics, BOTH must listen to us.
The problem, if we are brave enough to be honest, is two fold.
We do not want uninvited boats ever.
And hate me for it! Australians in numbers enough to change government are extremely concerned about internal tribalism by such in our country.

Belly,

While I have a lot of respect for Paul Kelly, there is a lot more than the asylum seeker policy on the table at the moment, and Juliar has yet to even present her proposal on the legal amendments. Abbott is not blocking anything yet, just highlighting that the Malaysian solution is hopeless and far worse than the pacific solution with respect to human rights.

Juliar needs this more than Abbott at the moment, and he intends to get his ounce of flesh.

Shadow Minister enough!
You only have a good opinion of the bloke when he agrees with you.
You abandon the right to be respected with the constant abuse of our PM.
I in all probability dislike her more than you.
And yes,for A time used RAbbott to describe your leader.
I unlike your self understood, it was CHILDISH.
Kelly, think man! has reminded the dud you have so much faith in, he too, must have out side support to stop the boats.
Abbott,you surely, for you can not convince me other wise, wants the issue unsolved, it harms Labor.
Today yes, tomorrow your team, but mate, every day it harms my country.
Liberals ruled over the worst KNOWN single event leading to deaths.
They lied about children over board and Tampa shamed us.
Not one, not a single one, sent to Nehru was sent back home bar a few
Who went home on their own, EVERY ONE GOT ENTRY TO AUSTRALIA.
Both party's have got it it wrong, surely next week your unhappy bunch can sit and say ok we want other places , put laws in place that say.
A GOVERNMENT RULES NOT COURTS!

Belly,

I agree with most of What Paul Kelly says, with the exception that I don't think that this is Abbott's final position. He is going to make Juliar grovel. She wants a blank cheque to rewrite the law and proceed with the Malaysian solution with maybe Manus Island. The only reason she is avoiding Nauru is because she spent years deriding it.

As for the Nauru costing hundreds of $millions, this is no more than the temporary Malaysian solution that is pegged at $300m.

This will also provide a useful distraction to the carbon tax.

Tony Abbott is a failure.
He is what he appears to be a scrapper.
A school yard Bully he has it over Gillard.
Labor knows it.
Conservatives know it.
All wait for him to fall.
For those inside and outside the house supporting him to with draw.
He any day, may trip on his own bottom lip or tongue.
Most know it could be any day, most are convinced it will happen.
His task is not to win Bully boy fights, not to taunt Gillard.The task set for him is to impress us with his ability to deliver good policy's.
You say he is playing a mind game, then it is too with Australia.
He in power, wants offshore processing, Labor wants it Australia wants it.
IF he fails to support this bill FULLY He in fact sides only with?
The Greens!
Happy with that bloke?

Juliar is an abject failure, and we don't have to wait.

She has yet to deliver a workable policy, or anything that she promised.

It looks as though labor has been waiting for Abbott to fail for some time, and as of yet he hasn't. In the mean whilst, the much derided Abbott is now far more popular than the back stabbing ex deputy PM.

Abbott wants off shore processing, but not Malaysia, and Nauru can be used with the most minimal changes to the laws. It is not necessarily in Australia's interest to eliminate all checks and balances. Writing Labor a blank cheque is not in either the coalition's or Australia's best interest.

What is needed is a bipartisan acceptance that people risk their lives on boats because government policy rewards such behaviour. Who would risk his life in a boat if there were no advantage? The current policy does no more than kill desperate people.

Sorry SM, but true, you heave rocks slurs and slander but not debate.
You ARE PYNE or one of the BISHOPS are you?
Just once debate.
This issue as fester says is one for consensus.
You switch the subject under pressure but here are some facts.
BOTH sides want the boats stopped.
5QC,s say this can not be done without changing the law.
Advice is Nehru will not work now, things change.
If Abbott says no.
To keep the issue as a weapon in his bag, he may well be blamed, he walks on ice.
And if the change is legislated now or under an Abbott government.
It will, need both sides to pass it.
IF Abbott fails to pass it now, would you expect Labor to help in the future?
IS IT GOOD politics to hold governments to ransom, helping courts over rule the governments intentions?
And the intentions of your own team?
To use this issue, to flog on behalf of only the greens
Is this why you changed the subject? are you ashamed of the snake oil salesman's stupidity?
After his bleating he alone sponsors future boat arrivals? madness!

Belly,
I disagree with you, it is not a question of consensus.

It is simply a matter of government deciding NOT to give the illegals what they seek and it doesn't really matter where they are processed. Although the further away from the interferring busybody advocates the better.

The government does not require special legislation to deny permanent residence and no family reunion, legal aid or to make them wait 10 years, as in Africa, before processing.

This present government, under Rudd, stuffed it all up so let them fix it, but they are trying everything other than the proven means to stop the boats. Their ego prevents them from acting.

I see from this mornings press that the government admitts that 4% die enroute, which means they acknowledge that 440 have died since they changed the situation.

At long last, belatedly, the government now seems to acknowledge that they failed, which is what happens when ideology is put before practicality and the stupid Greens, and some like Cameron, are still wanting to make it even easier, so more illegals drown.

Fester,
You said. "The current policy does no more than kill desperate people".

Agreed, but drop the word desperate. These illegals are not that desperate. They have the money and the means to fly to Malaysia, with either valid or fake documents, illegally enter Indonesia, then pay smugglers far more than an air fare to get to Australia. Their goal is economic, to obtain the good life and they lie, cheat and bribe to get that. They do not care about cheating us or bypassing others waiting patiently for a place.

Those in camps like in Africa, Burma and Malaysis are the desperate ones.

Belly,

There are ways to get around the high court decision for Nauru (PS Nehru was a Indian prime minister) such as intercepting the boats and taking the asylum seekers directly to Nauru. And introducing TPVs will prevent unaccompanied children being able to bring their parents, etc.

Juliar needs the legislative changes more than the coalition. After slagging off the pacific solution, all labor has is a monster stuff up.

If there was any doubt as to Labor's position this is it:

http://www.news.com.au/national/labor-admits-its-clueless-on-new-asylum-legislation/story-e6frfkw9-1226136709536

What does Juliar want Tony to agree to? She doesn't even know, just wants a blank Cheque.

Banjo

I dont see the motivation of the boat people to be of much relevance. What annoys me is government policy rewarding their life risking behaviour.

To give an analogy, imagine a cesspit of 100,000 people, all desperate to get to Australia. If they wait, it might take them ten years to get asylum. But if they can get across a tightrope suspended over a fatal fall onto jagged rocks, asylum is immediate and almost certain. Belly and SM are arguing about what to do with all the tightrope walkers, some are in favour of having a few guys with pointy sticks at the end to provide further discouragement, and many doubt their authenticity. But how many would walk the tightrope if there were no advantage in it?

Fester,

That was precisely what the pacific solution was about, and it was an overwhelming success.

By comparison, in the first 3 weeks from when the Malaysian solution was announced, 2x as many people arrived as in the worst year of the pacific solution.

OK you blokes gather around.
I am on the trade union official stump.
We need to talk.
First rule, yes I know you know it.
Tell me what you think, not what you think I want to hear.
Friday, Melbourne about 5 PM Abbott sits down to get our best legal advice.
Hey blue, sit SM down! he is interfering with the meeting.
That advice is that we can no longer send refugees offshore.
Not to Nehru, not Manus, not Malaysia.
No SM!, ok lets hear him out.
Stop laughing you blokes!
The issue is this.
We can not send them any place, more will come,what do we do.
SM says nah nah nah, not sure what that means but how about we change the law?
What say we tell the courts/lawyers/greens/refugee advocates GOVERNMENTS both sides, now and forever make the rules not them.
OK you blokes no point carrying on, SM last remark finished the meeting, STOP LAUGHING!
SM says voting with the greens is the answer!
While you are all so happy get your wallets out we need to put a few bob in the kids with cancer fund.

Talking to yourself is the first sign of?

Banjo:

<< It is simply a matter of government deciding NOT to give the illegals what they seek and it doesn't really matter where they are processed >>

Yes, it should be this straightforward. If the priorities were right, it would be this way. If the priority was to stop this whole onshore asylum seeking rat-race quickly, decisively and permanently, as it should be, and redirect our national efforts into boosted offshore refugee programs and international aid, then it wouldn’t be hard to do it.

Fester:

<< I dont see the motivation of the boat people to be of much relevance. What annoys me is government policy rewarding their life risking behaviour. >>

Yes.

Shadow Minister:

<< That was precisely what the pacific solution was about, and it was an overwhelming success. >>

YES! The methodology for dealing with this saga has been established! That is; the right balance between stopping the whole business while also treating those caught in the middle of it humanely rather than just telling them to bugger off.

Crikey, Rudd’s stuff-up that opened up this whole onshore asylum seeking issue again after it was done and dusted was one of the most monumental political blunders in our national history. I could see this as soon as I heard about it and I said so emphatically on OLO.

He was much worse than just a dud. And now this person looks like he may well become our PM again.

God help us!!

Hi Ludwig,
Where have you been my friend?, I thought that you may have got lost in the tree forests of Qld, or decided to visit two peoples' bay again.
Cheers Ludwig,
NSB

5 PM Tomorrow Tony Abbott will be briefed.
By the very same people who briefed John Howard and his team.
When the Pacific solution was put in place.
That briefing details already announced, will say it is doubtful/unlikely Nehru can be used as it once was.
It too will be said, by the same advisers to Howard, the Malaysian solution, NOT YET TRIED OR STARTED, seems likely to be the best answer.
Remember Malaysia has not been allowed to start/trial because of hight court actions.
Abbott needs to say, will he in government have an opportunity to change these laws.
To defend his right to use offshore processing?
He can say no, my way, let the opposition rule, or no way.
Vote with the GREENS.
And risk his mask falling and AUSTRALIA seeing the true nature of the man.
Tell me conservatives after years of denigrating the boats policy's of Labor.
Years of saying BOB BROWN IS PRIME MINISTER.
WILL AUSTRALIA BELIEVE ANYTHING HE SAYS AGAIN?

One wonders Belly why you are concerned about TA briefing. Your opinion of him won't change no matter which way he votes. If Ms Gillard/Mr Rudd had the interests of the refugees at stake they would not of changed the policies that worked so well. Maybe Ms Gillard with so much egg on her face for once might swallow a little pride.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/dont-give-up-on-deal-malaysia-20110915-1kbzv.html
This link, posted from the land of Insomnia is well worth a read.
Leave your biases at the door.
Look and consider.
This as yet untried, [attempts to send some home failed]idea may have other benefits.
Malaysia may indeed via this deal be opening its door to better treatment of its refugees.
What chance Abbott if he insists on only his way, will one day need to change the law and fail due to his actions.
Compromise is the oil of government.
Who will do that in the future if Abbott will not now?
And do Conservatives want a greens conservative team?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/tony-abbott-caught-between-convictions-and-putting-julia-gillard-in-a-hard-place/story-e6frgd0x-1226138230314
This link is from Abbott's publicity machine the Australian.
Maybe his propaganda house the Sydney Telegraph gets one next.
Expressive and balanced, bit strange that!
It is of true interest.
Most, from every side of the debate, will find some good some bad in it.
I think no one who has a view on this issue should not read and reflect on every word.

will he in government have an opportunity to change these laws.
Belly,
Why not ask the same of Gillard ?

Belly,
I really would believe it if someone told me that Australia was sold for a Dollar by Labor to some boat people & you'd still be favouring Labor.

I am aware of my surroundings and think no reply is best.
However for balanced and inquiring posters this is true.
Those two links are not my words.
They came from the journal mostly known as the private property of Abbott.
I no longer remember the home of one.
Both are a rare item for some posters with fixed views.
Informative.
And both do not let the Government off.
In fact the second one, in my view best expresses the views of middle Australia.
This too is true, on this single issue, the Australian may have it right.
All out comes are possible, including the fall many have waited for from Abbott.
Some, will never understand this or any issue but constantly wounder why they receive few replies.

Hello Noisy

I’m in Perth on extended leave. I am pretty much a fulltime carer, for an unknown period. Not finding much time to indulge in OLO at the moment. Cheers.

.

I just hope to goodness that this onshore asylum seeker debacle gets properly sorted out in the near future.

Ludwig hope all is well.
Me too on the boats issue

It seems that Labor is determined to jettison its responsibility to asylum seekers in no uncertain terms - talk about changing your stance....even Mr Abbott thinks their draft legislation strips away all rights of those seeking asylum.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-16/abbott-vriefed-on-migration-amendments/2903700

That just about takes the cake for me regarding Labor's hypocrisy after their long-running criticism of Howard's solution.

Poirot,

For once I agree with you. I am never happy with the state having unfettered power, and I would call this a bill too far.

Having been critical of the coalition's refugee policy this is the ultimate irony:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/bowen-chased-by-refugee-advocates/story-fn59niix-1226139790764

SM,

"...a bill too far..."

I agree. This sort of proposal is dangerous. Power over crucial matters left entirely to the discretion of individual government ministers - with no recourse to legal challenge - could set a dangerous precedent for Australians in general.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-17/lawyers-raise-migration-changes-concerns/2904494

Poirot

Even when/if we vote out the Labor party, as it most assuredly deserves, we will still have off-shore asylum seekers assessment with an Abbott lead coalition as our next federal government - the Libs are not going to give up Nauru. Or will there be enough Independents and Greens to veto?

What a race to the moral depths on all our politicians.

Ammonite,

The reality is that both parties are merely reflecting their situation in being tethered to popular sentiment toward asylum seekers. Any party's ascendancy to Government is dependent on their winning a popularity poll....so they adjust their policies accordingly. Labor, it seems, is no more interested in the moral implications of these amendments than the Liberals are on the question of offshore processing in general.

It's not about morals, it's about acquiescing to the insular fears of an small island nation that jealously guards its prosperity and doesn't want anything to alter the status quo.

The media is central to the whole sordid arrangement between the parties and the electorate - each feeds off the other, and further distances "ethics" from the equation.

Poirot

I believe that "acquiescing to the insular fears of an small island nation" AKA appealing to the lowest common denominator as indicative of a complete lack of moral fibre. In the past governments have acted in opposition to public sentiment. I recall being one of John Howard's "rabble" during the anti-war protests in the early 2000's.

http://education.theage.com.au/cmspage.php?intid=135&intversion=59

A country does not need to be an island nation to be manipulated by fear - as the "Coalition of the Willing" demonstrated, of course it does help. The irony is that Australia's island nation having kilometres of uninhabitable coastline in addition to being difficult to reach means we receive far less of the influx of refugees as other countries.

Since 9/11 I feel I have been living a nightmare from which I have yet to wake.

Ammonite,

"...lowest common denominator..." - precisely!

Your example of the Howard Government slavishly following Georgie off to war is a good case in point. I'm also reminded of the Guantanamo effect - where ordinary American's (and others) sensed that sort of operation was against everything they'd so-called "fought for" during wars, and yet no mass protests - nothing - except the usual voices in the wilderness.

Again, it's perceptions that count. Tell a population they are in constant danger and continue to ramp up the "crisis" and voila!, you can do as you please.

Poirot

I forgot to add that governments can easily ignore the majority view when it suits them. Somehow (via media, corporate interests and persistent government message), over the past decade, the majority view has been skewed to fear a handful of boat refugees.

Western democracy supported by fear, greed, ignorance and so easily manipulated.

And, in spite of the GFC, Australia still has one of the world's best economies and freedoms - we have such an abundance and no appreciation.

I don't think anyone takes into account the normal business growth of
any business over time.
I clearly remember seeing a news item of a ship about 10,000 tons or so
arriving in Italy. It was packed, standing room only, with illegal
immigrants. There must have been a couple or so thousand on board.

Am I the only one who sees that as the logical conclusion if a tough
stand is not taken ? If they can run a successful business with small
boats think what they could make with large ships. Tens of millions a trip.

Bazz you are far from the only one who understands this truth.
I question in thread after thread this threat and others understanding of it.
For my views honestly held and thought out, on this issue and the greens I am seeing Friends leave me.
How very strange! groups claiming fairness equity honesty refusing to talk to those they disagree with.
If up to 5.000 boat people come here now, to face internment possibility of being returned home.
How many will come if no internment and a place here is assured, it could in ten years be a hundred thousand a year.
Why do we ignore the radical nature of some linked to the refugee movement, their history of protesting with extremists.
The phone links they have with boats and refugees before they get on the boat.
How do we rate those who remain waiting in camps.
Those with out the funds to pay criminals to bring them here.
Why do we let them jump the waiting lists , because they can pay? how about a debate on the part minority's are playing in this and far too many other matters.
We must, if nothing else, take the 4.000 in Malaya 90.000 wait there, but confront the concerns of all Australians not just the minority's or forget democracy if it exists only to roll the many on behalf of the few it is dead.

It can get much worse than just organising ships.
Piracy happens regularly in Asian waters. Even loaded oil tankers have
been seized and the cargo flogged off in Chinese ports.
Visualise the further desertification of China, shortages of oil, gas
electricity and food.
The combination of millions of hungry unemployed people and experienced
pirates, what would you expect to happen ?

It just would not be possible to tow them back with a patrol boat.
It could easily be a 30,000 ton passenger ship.
It would not be the first time, remember the Exodus ?
It would have to include armed action.
Boarding would be very dangerous and out of the question.

Ammonite and Poriot,
I want the boats stopped from coming and to do that we only need to not give them what they seek, and mean it. It is not fear that most Aussies do not want them here, it is the fact they are conning us and are gate crashers.

You both appear to support the continued arrival of the boats. So I assume you care not about the ones that do not make it, and drown on the way.

If you do care about the welfare of these people, then how would you handle the situation and how many do you think we should accept. What about the others languishing in camps that do not have the money to pay smugglers?

Interesting to hear what your policies would be.

Dear Banjo,

Boats could be stopped if the government provided
free passage by - shipping the
asylum seekers from Indonesian centres where
the local authorities would register the applicants
and then the government hired passenger boats to take
a set number of refugees per year and processed them
on board on the way to Australia. This would eliminate
boat smugglers and unnecessary deaths on the seas.

In the 1940,50s,60s. That is how most refugees came to
Australia. So what's wrong in repeating the process.
Why would anybody pay huge sums of money to get on
a leaky boat - when free passage on a safe ocean
liner would be offered.

If such an offer was made by the government to the
United Nations, I'm sure the world would support it.
It doesn't take that much intelligence to solve this
problem. It's only complicated by the games politicians
have decided to play. There is no need for the Malaysian
Solution, Nauru, leaky boats, or shipping people back
to where they came from.

Lexi

Excellent points and affordable given the current cost of off-shore processing both in dollars and human misery.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/offshore-option-five-times-dearer/story-e6frg6nf-1225983879727

http://www.championsofchange.org.au/?p=50

Banjo/Bazz sorry about the limp, blew a thong getting out of the Ute.
Us blokes are at it again, getting in to deep mud saying just what we think.
War comes we are the first in line our sort always are.
Think we all understand the costs in human suffering and money terms.
I think just maybe we are not alone in thinking are these boats refugees or financial migrants.
Never mind our views come from that insistent troubling , unfocused, group the vast majority, if it is not held by some we are .
Well lets see, uninformed, uneducated, inhuman, self centered, my list is long but just 100 years ago no longer, we would have called this invasion.

Lexi, I am surprised at you.
The government is doing exactly what you suggest except they are
coming on aircraft !
They are getting on boats because the queue at the aircraft steps is
too long for some of them so they get on boats !

Lexi,

I love the partial logic of the lefties. True the cost per person of processing off shore is 5x that of processing on shore. However, the fact that there are nearly 50 as many people with on shore only processing explains why the cost of processing people under labor is an order of magnitude higher than under the Coalition.

As for processing in Nauru, the site will probably take a couple of months, but a considering that Labor's stuff up has been going on for 3 years, it is worth the wait for a workable solution.

Lexi and Ammonite,
You are proposing an 'open door' with us providing the transport.

Unbelievable!

How do two adult people come to be so naive and gulible?

There is so much wrong with your proposal that I would not know where to start. I am trying not to laugh.

Guess you haven't thought about it much. I think it was Yabby that mentioned 'unintended consequences'.

Dear Bazz,

I am talking about refugees not people who have visas
and then overstay. Pay attention.

Dear SM,

Sorry - I'll respond in more detail when you say something
intelligent.

Dear Banjo,

When you stop laughing perhaps you might re-read
my post and try to comprehend what it is that's
being suggested and equate the costs that we're
currently involved with compared with what I'm
suggesting that just might work. So far nothing
else has worked.

Apparently Gillard presented Abbott with a revised draft of the amendment this morning in the hope of gaining Liberal support. She said this one had "more words"....oh, goody!.....

Dear Poirot,

The guy doesn't comprehend inter office memos -
so anything with more "words," no chance of either
reading or comprehending.

Lexi,
The boats were stoppedfrom coming. The problem is that this stupid government, under Rudd, started them coming again. So something did work and that something is 'not give them what they want'= no more boats.

The financial equation is also simple. No incoming boats = no cost.

The additional bonus is 'no lives lost'. See easy! We all win.

Lexi,

The Labor government is spending about 4x to 10x as much on detention, processing, legal costs etc than the Howard government ever did.

While the pacific solution cost more per person, there was a tiny fraction of the number of boats and people to process.

In Nov 2007 there were 6 detainees none of which were children. Since 2008 an estimated 440 people have drowned trying to reach Australia.

Who was the more humane?

It's all about brain chemistry you know.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/04/08/3186006.htm?topic=

The gist of the above article is that Liberals - lefties - have more grey matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity, while the conservative brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear. The study was published in Current Biology.

So we can't blame people for being 'primed' or 'vulnerable' to high levels of fear (and loathing?) about people and circumstances they don't understand.

I think one can see this tendency toward fear from the conservatives throughout the last decades of politics. For example, an inordinate fear of communism led to Vietnam, the fear of immaginary WMD's led to Iraq, the fear of the Asian peril led to Pauline Hanson.

But, this doesn't mean that we can't change our brain and our attitudes. We can and Norman Doidge explains the amazing things that we can make our brains do in his book "The Brain That Changes Itself".

And the fact that once upon a time Malcolm Frazer was scared of Asians swamping the country but since then he has changed his mind; perhaps because he was motivated to gain more knowledge and increase his understanding of the issues and the positive possiblities for our country.

Lexi pay attention:
I am talking about the some thousands of asylum seekers who are brought
into Australia each year from the UN list.

Please read carefully.

Mollydules writes
'So we can't blame people for being 'primed' or 'vulnerable' to high levels of fear (and loathing?) about people and circumstances they don't understand.

Its a pity a few more did not 'fear' before Britian became broken, or France or Germany. Then again the massive social problems are just part of our imagination. Tell that to the woman around Sydney that were raped leading up to the Cronulla riots. Some people just don't get it. The greatest fear mongers of our day are the global warming alarmist seeing if they can out do each other with their doomsday prophecies.

Dear Bazz,

Please provide your evidence.

cont'd ...

What you're talking about is legitimate arrivals -
who arrive on legitimate tourist, business, and
other visas. They are less likely to be genuine
refugees compared to those of the boat people -
who have proven to be 85-90% genuine refugees.

Plane people live in the community, not in detention
centres and they're allowed to work. Boat people
represent just a small fraction of our refugee intake
and they're the ones that are vilified by our politicians.

There's a big difference between plane people and boat
people.

Surely you know Lexi about the people approved by the UNHCR as refugees
who are brought to Australia every year ?

I think it is about 15,000. Something like that.
I can't be bothered doing the search for you, just try the immigration
web site, I am sure it will be there.
Thats the queue I was talking about at the foot of the stairs to the
aircraft bringing them to Australia.
That is the queue the boat people won't wait on.
You must surely have heard the saying "queue jumpers" ?
Well they are the boat people, got it ?

Dear Bazz,

We seem to be talking at cross-purposes here.
I tried to point out to you the difference
between plane people and boat people and the
way they're treated. Boat people are not
illegal. They are entitled to seek asylum.
Australia has signed an agreement to that effect.
They are entitled to have their cases assessed and
heard in court. How can they be "queue jumpers,"
when their cases have not even been presented or heard.
They are fleeing persecution and are entitled to seek
asylum and have their cases heard.

So Runner how do you know that Britain and all those other countries are broken? Have you been there or do you get your information from reading scare mongering articles that are designed to raise your level of anger and fear?

These are exactly the same sort of articles that are used by the global warming scare mongers to make people aware of the dangers of climate change. So is it a good thing to raise your fear of muslims or to raise your fear of climate change?

I agree that Europe and the UK have problems because of the muslim refugees but it is also because of the economy; and the US has their illegal immigrants - Mexicans and a failing economy.

The world is going through a great many changes. Is it right or going to be a good thing for us here in Australia to be exempt from these changes by abandoning our humanity and that old idea of fairness?

But don't lie! There were no rapes that led to the display of bogan stupidity at Cronulla, just a few very offensive statements and actions and there is no evidence that muslims rape more often than you white blokes.

There are a great many ex-refugees mainly from Sudan in my regional town, and as a group they do create more problems for the police; but so do the indigenous people and for the same reasons. The refugees do contribute to the community, are interested in integrating and their children will be a terriffic asset to the area.

I think that the Australian Government is over exaggerating the issues in which they see, with asylum seekers. Australia only receives around 2 percent of the worldwide asylum claims, yet makes the most noise and radical policy changes. They seem to have no remorse, as these people are fleeing away from a horrible life and wouldn’t be placing their life in danger, just to as people say “Jump the que”. And moving them to Malaysia wouldn’t fix any of this. I’m glad the high courts found this unlawful, but its now up to Tony Abbot who only a few months ago said just turn the boats around and send them home. So in summary I think that the government don’t really understand the consequences of the policy changes that they are making.

Mollydukes, you ask
So Runner how do you know that Britain and all those other countries are broken?
I know people who actually left Britian for that reason. You also accuse me of lying re rapes of young woman by Muslims. Your denial by accusation is arrogant and ignorant. Try reading a little before making such accusations
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=6267
Your warped view of fairness assists in dividing and destroying societies built on a fair go. Lumping socities with total different value systems does not help anyone.

Lexi, perhaps you are not aware that there are UNHCR registered people
in Indonesia. Many thousands I believe. The ABC interviewed some of
them on 4 Corners I think it was only a few weeks ago.
The ones that come here do not all come from Indonesia, but some do.
The ones that were interviewed were awaiting their Australian papers
and had been there for years. You can understand they would not be
happy with the queue jumpers.

Runner that link you provided is exactly the type of fear mongering rubbish that I said you would be reading. It is short on facts and objective analysis. There is no evidence that the author has any understanding of the big picture, or makes any effort to see the big picture.

The clear intention of this article is to raise your level of fear and loathing of anything different.

We become better people by meeting challenges and rising above them. We become a better country by meeting challenges and increasing the diversity of our citizens. Monocultures in agriculture and human societies are very weak and will never be able to resist incursions from stronger cultures.

Remember that the original white Australians were criminals who arrived by boat and totally destroyed the mono-culture of the people who were already here. The people living here had a perfectly satisfactory life that they had worked very hard to establish and did not want to change.

But they were helpless to resist the white culture not because they were less technologically able but mainly because they did not understand the 'settlers' or what they wanted. White society has always changed and integrated other peoples and become stronger from this amalgamation.

When we have a population that includes well integrated muslims we will be stronger as a nation. We will have the capacity to understand the rest of the world and so be able to be part of that world as it changes.

It's really stupid of you to say that I am ignorant and warped and all those other insults. It makes no sense and is more evidence that you need to change your brain chemistry and develop your ability to discriminate facts from fantastic scenarios based on fear, ignorance and the tendency to abuse and bully those you disagree with.

Runner, I'm sure that friends of yours would have left Britain because of the state of the country.

Lots of people from the UK came to Australia well before there were mulims refugees to be upset about.