Lexi, a single swallow does not make a summer. One single refugee
who thought of using forged documents, was told he would be deported
immediately if caught. That is hardly evidence for a large scale
forgery racket that is not being detected by Customs.

Once again, people who arrive by air have valid papers and a return
air ticket, or they would not even be granted a holiday visa.
If their papers are not valid, instant deportation, as your article
shows.

Yes Nehru worked.
Boats stopped
90% of those held there got settled in NZ or here.
Some went home by their own wish.
Not one was returned by us.
The high court challenge had repercussions.
The best advice is.
It is not possible with out change to use that place now.
Two it is, on the best advice, not enough to stop the boats now if it was legal.
Forrest Gumpp is right, like it or not most Australians do feel let down, do want it stopped.
Consider please.
If we passed bills, making both things legal.
And the one government picked failed,or Abbott's one did.
Would that be so awful, it would show one side right one wrong, Australia can then judge.
Who of us, is not aware settling this issue has become secondary to the childlike use of it to stop progress in the name of self interest.

Of Course Nauru worked, and will work again. Even if the legislation is not passed, it can be used simply by intercepting the boats and transferring the people directly to Nauru. As the high court decision deals with transfer from Australia, this does not contravene anything.

Secondly TPVs will reduce the incentive further.

Belly has a point, the rot goes a lot deeper than a squable over choice of processing venues.

Though I don't think the Malaysian solution would have worked for reasons stated here:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4816#128400

At the core of our problem lie people --many in influential positions (like the judiciary ,the ABC & SBS, which I note is inflicting on us a repeat of its atrcious beat-up, Go Back to Where You Came From)-- and Luciferase who think that by giving away our citizenship to every Tom, Dick & Ali who cry's poor they are and doing something noble and making <<Australia...a better nation>>.

The inevtable result is outcomes like this (with thanks to Lexi for the link!):

<<While only 38 per cent of Afghan boat arrivals were initially judged to be refugees in 2010-11, almost 80 per cent of those rejected won visas on appeal>>

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/appeals-open-asylum-seeker-floodgates/story-fn7x8me2-1226208525393

or results like this:

<<More than 40 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat in the past year were Iranians and, of the ones assessed, about two-thirds have had their application for refugee status rejected...[but]Iran will not allow Australia to send the Iranians home>>

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/more-than-a-thousand-iranians-risk-languishing-for-years-in-detention/story-e6freuy9-1226180501361

Perhaps we need to go straight to the cause. Find our influential activists a more noble cause...something they can while away their hours of underemployment with --Does anyone have time teach them the finer points of tiddlywinks?

Hello Noisy. Thanks for your warm welcome back.

----
<< Perhaps we need to go straight to the cause. Find our influential activists a more noble cause...something they can while away their hours of underemployment with --Does anyone have time teach them the finer points of tiddlywinks? >>

SPQR, the more noble cause is staring us in the face: back Minister Bowen’s desire to increase our refugee intake… on the strict proviso that onshore and fly-in asylum-seeking be curtailed.

This really is a pretty good offer, which the Sarah Hanson-Youngs of this world should be fully supporting.

They should also be pushing for a big increase in our international aid effort, from the current paltry ~0.3% of GDP to at least the UN-recommended 0.7%.

Those who are demanding an easy passage for onshore asylum seekers, including onshore processing, no detention, etc, and who are thus creating an enormous pull factor for ever-more onshore asylum seekers, really are terribly misguided, and need to think very hard about the bigger picture.

And let’s not forget who it was who reopened this whole horrible debacle, after it had been such as an enormously divisive issue in the early noughties, and which had been successfully dealt with by Howard.

Yes, one K.M. Rudd. Australia’s worst-ever PM!

What WAS he thinking ?? ?? ?? And how could his fellow decision-makers, including one J.E. Gillard, possibly have gone along with it?

If he wanted to improve his humanitarian status in the eyes of the voters and the Greens, then why didn’t he just boost the offshore refugee intake a bit or increase international aid expenditure instead??

This still boggles my mind.

579; Your logic seems to have gone out the window.
I was agreeing with you that the Malaysia solution would work !

Lucifer said;
why did the Navy get the call if border security was going along so
swimmingly as you say, without its involvement? Because nothing else
did the trick, that's why.

You got it completely wrong !
The boats put out maidere calls and the Navy was obliged under SOLAS
rules to turn up.
You should really try to bypass the hysterical minority when looking
for information.
The smuggler knew that if they sabotaged the boats the navy would have
no choice but to take them to Australia.
However if picked up by a civil ship they could be returned to the
next port of call.
If Australia wanted to be nasty, we could position a merchant ship
in the area "on a voyage to Nauru !".