What does it mean to "close the borders"? Must all the boats past through a checkpoint to get in?

I've got a ripper idea, yeah, let's put up a big barrier in the ocean to stop the boats!

"Closing the borders" is another way of saying "Solution", be it Pacific or Malaysian.

Back to the real discussion.

Luciferase,

You claim I am lying, but provide a link that proves what I said. Juliar said in the election debate that I watched that Nauru would never be considered because it was not a signatory to the UNHCR. Nauru had been dithering around signing it, but after a push by the opposition finalized the process.

When Juliar and Bowen announced the Malaysian solution, Nauru was a signatory, and Malaysia wasn't. Juliar has no excuse other than arrogance.

As for Belly's out burst, there is a difference between bending the truth, and breaking it.

As for Nauru not working, how can you explain the dramatic increase in boat arrivals when Nauru was closed? I also think that the vast majority of Australians believe that the Pacific solution worked.

Dear Ludwig,

Michael Clarke tell us:

"Offshore processing of asylum seekers, whether in Malaysia,
Nauru, Manus Island or any other regional state of island,
does not, contrary to the claims of both the Government and
the Opposition, deter people smugglers nor the asylum
seekers themselves from undertaking dangerous boat journeys
to our shores."

As for perpetuating the consistent line that "Howard succeeded?"
All the Howard Government did was strike the pose of being
"tough" on people that it characterised as "queue jumpers,"
and as potential threats to national security.

Given the rhetoric of the Howard years,
such as the oft-quoted, "we will decide who comes to this country
and the circumstances under which they come," would have meant
that the majority of those detained under the "Pacfic Solution,"
would have in fact have been REFUSED asylum in Australia.

The reality, however, as Clarke points out was that - between
2001 and 2008, 1637 people were detained on Nauru and Manus
Island. Of those 1153 (i.e 70%) were settled in Australia. The
remaining were resettled in other countries. Therefore the
deterrant value of such an exercise, as Graham Richardson
suggested is far from clear:

"Your average people-smuggler would not have to be all that
bright to sell to a potential client that there was a 70%
chance of success in finishing up in an acceptable
Western Nation, most probably Australia, after spending a
year on a Pacific Island. Asylum-seekers will hand over
the money and risk their lives when the odds are as high as
70%."

"Is the alternative of onshore processing, as
Richardson argues, a viable one?"

"Practically "yes," but politically, "no."

"Certainly it may seem more cost-effective, given that the
cost of housing detainees on Nauru and Manus Island between
2001 and 2006 came to approx. $1 billion."

What is actually needed is a change of course - and an
adoption of onshore processing as the preferred option.
This could possibly present the public with a clear
and distinct choice as opposed to the "bland and
ineffective Coke and Diet Coke options we now have."

Ludwig, how, exactly, are you going to close the borders to the largest Island on earth?
Even when we had off-shore processing, some boats still came.

If asylum seekers are desperate enough, they are not going to care what sort of 'policy' we have. Even if they are herded off to concentration camps in third world countries, it is still preferable to where they are fleeing from.

Asking for asylum in another country is not a crime, therefore we should not be treating them as criminals and sending them to our third world neighbours for 'dealing with'.

Australians are better than that, aren't we?

We need to stop the boats in order to save lives, but we have no right to refuse asylum to other people, no matter how they get here.

Lexi,

You are in error again.

1637 people were detained on Nauru and Manus Island. Of those 1153 (70%) were determined to be refugees of which 750 (43% of the total) were resettled in Aus.

"Your average people-smuggler would not have to be all that bright to sell to a potential client that there was a 70% chance of success in finishing up in an acceptable Western Nation, most probably Australia"

Well apparently they were complete retards as they only managed one boat a year. It probably had something to do with not being able to pick their country of destination, (thus being unable to join family), only getting a TPV which meant they could not bring anyone else over, and possibly being repatriated once conditions in their home country changed.

All this debate is futile, the correlation between the pacific solution and the dramatic fall in boat arrivals is too strong to be anything else.

Shadow Minister! are you well?
Quote from my thread you imposed your own words/lie on.
The Shadow Minister, not our gentle man, end quote.
Given you actions can any thing you ever say be believed
BAZZ bloke please, you have not read the post not understood if you did.
Before Labor with drew the bill, from the lower house, some one, who votes with Labor said he would not support it.
In that lower house
Labor, then withdrew the bill.
Knowing it would be rejected and a moral victory for conservatives.
Labor knew/knows it will not pass the greens blockade of majority's wishes in the senate.
But will, in the new year get it past the lower house because slipper changed sides.
I invite protagonists to revisit both my thread above and SM s last three disjointed and quite untrue ones.
This too is of interest NEGATIVE MAN said today NO NO NO to meetings with government to try to resolve this issue.
If Labor does that in opposition we will hear the screams forever.
Please, do not forget, the real SM CAN BE SEEN HERE JUST LOOK AT THE UNTRUTHS.