Australia has a right to set an intake of refugees for resettlement that it feels comfortably able to assimilate.

An open door policy towards boat-people, as held by the Greens, rewards those with the will and the means to project themselves ahead of those already processed and awaiting resettlement.

Any major political party supporting an open door policy will be smashed by middle Australia in an election and believing otherwise is wishful thinking.

By comparison, the Malaysian swap has support and will gain more if proven effective before the next election.

If the Greens want to maintain relevance across all areas of policy it will have to bend on this one to give Labor a chance at the next election. Otherwise, the Coalition will not compromise and go to the election as the only party that can deliver on this issue, regardless of how inhumanely, calling for an absolute majority that Labor has no chance of achieving.

Blind, unbending principle is a fine luxury when you don't have to run a country. The Greens, if they want to remain involved in running this one, better get pragmatic quickly. Their open door policy, while warm and fuzzy, does not respect the right of the nation to set its own assimilation figure, nor the right of those already processed as refugees to have first consideration for resettlement.

I call on the Greens to respect these rights and join with Labor to at least block the forcing of unsafe boats, crowded with vulnerable people, back out to sea

I meant to tell Luciferase, when you made a similar comment on another post, how much I absolutely agree with that opinion. The Greens have to make the call on this one.

Agreed Luciferase. But could you outline just exactly what the Greens policy is. Thanks.

Good question, Ludwig, it's a work in progress. However, one thing is certain, offshore processing is off their agenda.

The recent disaster prompted their response that accidents (s...) happens, and the claim that decriminalization, i.e. no confiscation of boats or incarceration of crews, would lead to safer journeys.

Essentially, they are against any form of boat deterrence. Furthermore, they have concerns, as we all do, with conditions surrounding onshore processing, saying asylum seekers should live in the general community while their applications are assessed.

Together,these policies amount to an open-door policy. If you can get here, come take a place at the table and we'll just keep adding more chairs.

Dear Luciferase,

I totally agree with you on this one.

If the Greens don't bend on this issue and support
Labor - they will lose many supporters at the next
election (if not permanently). This ia one issue
that Australians feel very strongly about - and the
Greens had better wise-up or get out of politics.

Yes Lexie, the Greens must exercise the power they do have to achieve the best outcome they possibly can, which they should realistically accept is not an open-door to asylum seekers.

This is a test of whether they wish to die but once or die a thousand deaths, each of which can each be played out over various issues to keep the bastards honest. Go the Green-o-cats.

Any one see the Ray Martin interview on ABC?
It was repeated a few times, my PC suffered from kids and was in the shop.
So I did twice.
Ray is no lefty, in fact his comments turned me right of, kiss and cuddle to Murdock press.
But he pointed out we switch off on politics.
We do! now Greens hold their beliefs to their Brest's, and think its the right ones.
However they may well fail to understand a basic.
Numbers in the end win.
Labors stumbling, Rudd's not delivering, Gillard and the party's loss of hearing the voice of voters drove their vote higher.
It has peaked, the intrusion of very radical NSW left members has hurt them.
If Abbott can rely on Greens to block this legislation?
We will see that vote drive.
Only the truth, we Aussies care little for true understanding of politics, saves them.

Luciferase has things back-to-front. The problem has less to do with where the illegals are processed –but quite a lot to do with the ineffectiveness of our processing.

Browsing the Refugee Review Tribunal cases shows claims from every corner of the world--but some nationals are more favoured than others

And NO, it’s NOT because the less favoured nationals are necessarily less worse off. Few (with any knowledge of real world) would doubt that the Chinese & Indian’s in Malaysia,or the Christians in Indonesia are not badly done by. Yet asylum claims by those nationals are largely dismissed,while appeals by those claiming to be from Afghanistan or Sri Lanka (or Fiji) –backed by little more than generic stories --are more often than not accepted.
<<NINETY-SIX per cent of Afghan asylum claims finalised last year were successful >>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/almost-all-afghans-allowed-to-stay/story-fn59niix-1226007198197

It's our favorable treatment of some groups that is encouraging them.

And that is why we are getting flotillas full of Afghani’s
--though many have not lived in Afghanistan for decades.
<< many people undeservingly used the prosecution of certain ethnic groups in Afghanistan in their advantage to get residency status in Australia>>
http://www.blogetcetera.com/2011/the-afghan-bazaar-or-boat-bazaar/

And customs-vessel-hijacking Tamils claiming to be from Sri Lanka
–though many have not lived in Sri Lanka for decades.
<<A notable example was "Alex" Kuhendrarajah, the spokesman for a group of Tamils in Indonesia, who, contrary to his claims, had lived in Chennai, India, for many years and had previously been deported from Canada because of his involvement in criminal activities>>
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/beware-of-asylum-seekers-bearing-tales-of-woe/story-e6frg6zo-1225850659899

We are quick to blame poor governance in places like Indonesia, and call for regional solutions –but a lot of the fault lies with the namby-pamby policies of successive OZ administrations.

It’s a bit like me advertising free beer for the first two hundred guests to my new years eve party. Then bemoaning the fact that my neighbors have not been able to stop unscrupulous individuals from trekking across my back fence,and calling for a suburban solution to “the problem”.

And as for the Greens needing to respect the “rights of (our) nation” or middle Australia --ROFL

SPQR,

is your point that we could assimilate more refugees if the blend was different, i.e. a lower proportion of muslims in the total resettled?

Perhaps Australia's military involvement in the world is reflected in the intake blend. Whatever, that's a very subjective matter you raise but doesn't challenge the idea that the total figure set down for resettlement should be our right to decide.

Perhaps your point that the blend of the intake should reflect the blend of the present population, or advance christian over muslim asylum applicants? This is again, a subjective matter.

Please articulate more exactly your point that makes my opening piece illogical.

The "suburban" analogy to the "regional" solution assumes we share fences with adjacent neighbouring blocks. Australia is an island and outsiders don't get away with just landing on our shores and blending in. We have considerable control over matters.

Re ROFL, I hope you will have to stand upright in amazement soon, but I'm not willing to bet on it. The Greens need to take a less kamikaze approach to politics at some point, I just hope that point is nigh.

Aren't the Greens for stalling progress in order to save the environment ? I doubt if they'll agree to more & more bush being cleared to house more boat people. More pressure on the environment etc.

Luciferase,

<<but doesn't challenge the idea that the total figure set down for resettlement should be our right to decide>>
I'm not challenging it. I agree wholeheartedly we have the right to choose both the number and mix. Though I think you'll find
many of your erstwhile allies on OLO will scream "racism" & moan about The White Australia Policy at any mention of the phrase: right to choose. They see Australia as a giant soup kitchen--and a soup kitchen has no right to pick & choose its clientele!

<<Perhaps Australia's military involvement in the world is reflected in the intake blend>>
This is a furphy. We've never had any culpability in the Sri Lankan civil war, nor any of the African conflicts (unless you subscribe to the Poirot doctrine that it's a giant class war and the robber barons West is bleeding the rest!). It's a damned if we do and damned if we don't scenario: if we get involved we're told we have a responsibility to take in the displaced,and if we don't, we're told we're duty bound to take them in because we didn't intervene.

My core point is we don't need the Malaysian non-solution to stop the boats. We just have to have the backbone to set the bar higher.

We have had recent examples where we turned-around Javanese & New Guineans posing as refugees. And every day we turn-around Chinese, Indians & Europeans by the score.

I do not see any armadas of the aforementioned landing on our shore.
If it is made loud and clear they will get a NO they will not come.
They may well try other means --posing as student hairdressers or cooks --but they will not masquerade as castaways.

See here right from the (Trojan) horse's mouth:
"If Australia does no want asylum seekers to come to Australia [by boat], it is a better way to close all the borders and THEN NO-ONE WILL COME."
http://www.smh.com.au/world/survivors-tell-why-the-boats-keep-coming-20111219-1p1td.html

The only question is do we have the backbone to stand up to the noisy advocates & their Green allies?

Respect your opinion SPQR but disagree where you write "My core point is we don't need the Malaysian non-solution to stop the boats. We just have to have the backbone to set the bar higher."

Just why is it that forcibly turning back unsafe, overcrowded boats back out to further danger at sea, which inherently compromises the navy, appeals to you so? Simply calling the Malaysian swap a "non-solution" is not an argument against it. I assert it will work and you assert it won't. I hope we get to find out.

You use the words of a disaster survivor, "Why does Australia not close the border? Everyone is coming because the border is open. Everyone is going there and they are being accepted"

Again we come down to how we "close the border". If that means forcibly turning back unsafe, overcrowded boats back out to further danger at sea then, sorry, Australia can do better than that.

The Malaysian swap, endangers nobody at sea and does not compromise the navy.

It will take awhile for the swap to establish itself as a deterrent, as did the use of force.

We are closer than you think on many points. SPQR, but I draw the line at using force as a deterrent.

BTW, there are other threads where I have had plenty to say on issues raised around the swap, which I don't want to rehash.

We agree with the disaster survivors that they blame open borders for their risk-taking and that the Greens can do something about that.

Luciferase,

<<Just why is it that forcibly turning back unsafe, overcrowded boats back out to further danger at sea...appeals to you so? >>

It's not about turning boats back into cyclonic seas. Consider what we have on offer:

1) If they tell us they're from the right locality, their prospects of acceptance are good--extremely good.
<<NINETY-SIX per cent of Afghan asylum claims finalised last year were successful >>

2) And while they wait their claims to be processed, they have prospects of being released into the community (we provide the spending money!)
<< In 18 October last year, the Prime Minister and I announced that the Government would move the majority of children and vulnerable family groups out of immigration detention facilities and into community-based accommodation by June this year>>
http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/cb/2011/cb159599.htm

3) And they may get the chance to sponsor their relos
<<Mr Shahi arrived on Christmas Island as an unaccompanied child in May 2009 and was granted a protection visa later that year.In December 2009 he applied for a ''global special humanitarian'' visa for his mother and several other family members to join him in Australia.">>
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/national/high-court-rules-for-afghan-refugee/story-e6freooo-1226222067060

4) And they need not work ever again.
<<MORE than 60 per cent of refugees to Australia have failed to get a job after five years, according to a damning Federal Government report into the humanitarian settlement program.And 83 per cent of those households now rely on welfare payments for income>>
http://www.news.com.au/national/a-world-of-long-term-welfare-for-refugees/story-e6frfkvr-1226050161428#ixzz1iEuPh8r4

5) And they even get to return to the old country (that is the place they feared so much!) for a little rest and recreation --without it damaging their refugee status.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/a-refugee-reconnects-20110701-1guv1.html

Now ask yourself: is there any wonder we have an influx of boaties!

Is there any wonder we are seeing a proliferation of websites like this: http://www.afghans-asylum.mihanblog.com/
screaming: "Immigrate to Australia"

(such sites do a better job than any Tourism Australia sites in attracting people to our shores --though few of them be paying guests!)

If you remove this red carpet treatment you will not need to force anyone back --they will not come in the first place!

SPQR,

You write, "It's not about turning boats back into cyclonic seas.."
then you go on with your various concerns, some with which I agree, without coming back to this point.

What would you do in relation to the concerns you raise. Under the UN convention, we must provide certain support.

Why won't you support the Malaysian swap deterrent?

I note that in your link http://www.afghans-asylum.mihanblog.com/
there is discussion about the possible need for physical force in the transfer of people to Malaysia under the swap arrangement. Compared with forcing boats back, I can live with this on my conscience. It would be interesting to see whether the press is kept at bey to sanitize the transfers (there are moves in this direction now), but even if it wasn't, I think middle Australia would not shrink from the necessity.

The Coalition is going to keep the boats issue open for all its worth. Boats=Votes. You will note its rhetoric has tempered with mention of forcibly turning back boats barely now given utterance. a mire of other false solutions and concerns keep the pot simmering nicely, buying valuable time and leverage. Again, I'll say that I do not wish to rehash this ground (look me up as a user to see all I've had to say if you want).

Are there any Greens out there who will put up here on OLO, with the condition that I (and everyone else, I hope) will treat you respectfully?

SPQR in an extremely hard and controversial subject you impose other solutions and neatly side step those on the table.
Both sides of politics are fixed on their solution not looking for yet more.
Greens, as is their nature, are fixed on their minority views only.
I say Malaysia will work, is not evil, and that is the only reason NEGATIVE MAN opposes it.
I too think Greens supporters are, well far less aware of the out comes of freakishly silly policy's, than income and educational back ground would expect.
Education that ignores 85% of the country's wishes, is self serving enough to think only their view is right, is harmful.
Greens could do no more to help conservatives than just remain the menace they are now.
Left of center is being chopped up every time a foolish young woman steps up to the mike and releases her mindless rubbish.
First bill this year should be to make first past the post our voting system, second abolish upper houses every one of them.
Let elected governments not Naked Morris dancers rule.

The PM was correct that controlling one's borders,
the core job of any nation state should be a matter
for the Executive. Not 7 High Court Justices.

Supporting the PM's legislation was not about the
Malaysian deal. It was about ensuring that such
fundamental decisions rest with elected officials,
not a committee of unelected ex-lawyers.

Mr Abbott and the Coalition effectively sided with
the Greens on that issue. It's time Australians
woke up to what's really happening and how politics
is being used.

Luciferase,

I agree that the opposition is playing the issue for all it’s worth.
As you say, boats =votes. But the electorate should be heard.
Gillard knowing middle Australia’s feelings, played-up her toughness re border control, but when she was elected she had no plan, only vague ideas all of which came to naught.

<< Under the UN convention, we must provide certain support.>>
Under the Convention, Temporary Protect Visas are a perfectly acceptable option, but our “leaders” have been so intimidated by the Greens and their allies that they have been taken off the table.

<<Why won't you support the Malaysian swap deterrent?>>
If you were one of the 100,000+ illegals living in Malaysia. With no promise of work, education, healthcare & subject to constant beatings. And you saw your fellow illegals who’d tried (unsuccessfully) to boat to OZ being shipped back, but now “guaranteed” work, education, healthcare and NO beatings. Might not you be motivated to take a slow boat to OZ?
Why, I’d wager, that even if you were living in the slums of Mumbai --and had previously not contemplated visiting OZ or Malaysia – you might be tempted to give it a go.

Why support such a Byzantine concoction when you can get better results by simply saying NO to illegals?

<< I note that in your link …there is discussion about the possible need for physical force in the transfer of people to Malaysia … I think middle Australia would not shrink from the necessity.>>

I can see it now:
SBS & the ABC would each run six part documercials bemoaning our inhumanity.
“Prominent person” would ruin full page newspaper spreads decrying it.
And every time little Ali fell over and grazed his knee in Malaysia, it would be a human rights incident.

How on earth do you expect an administration that didn’t have the wherewithal to remove illegals from the Oceanic Viking. But acquiesced to providing them with “culturally appropriate meals”,while its PM ran around the world like a second-rate supplicant seeking nations – acceptable to the occupiers-- make such a program work

SPQR,

You give a good account of the possible horror awaiting us under the swap deal, but I don't think the sky will fall in. Suck it and see, I say, and if you are right, we have lost nothing. Anything is better to try before turning boats back, especially when we ended up having to rescue many, from self-harm mostly, and bring them in for onshore processing anyway.

Regarding the Ocean Viking, I expect physical force to be necessary and that there will be Gov't resolve to use it with all there is now politically at stake.

Again, calling on any Greens out there willing to join the discussion, or is it just too hard?

If greens are contemplating joining the conversation, and I doubt it, they should consider the DLP.
First Greens are reluctant to get involved in debate that highlights the nature of the power they exert from a small base.
In no way unlike the DLP, Catholic right of the Labor party, Greens benefit only the conservatives.
Such is the power base they command, at it peak now, harming the true reformers is their only achievement.
SPQR fish's in an empty dam, no bait on the hook, to try to ignore Malaysia will work.
It says strongly come here and go to the back of an increasing line not here.
And that 4.000 who waited will be rewarded not those who paid.
It too opens, if only a little the door to UN in that country.
And too starts a new way of solving this world wide problem.
While not cutting refugee intake.

I have a few regrets about the Greens.
The Impact they are having on my party's polling.
The partly hidden nature of their policy's.
I fear good folk are found in their ranks, but some what blind to the true direction they follow.
I however most, with certainty, regret the battle scares inflicted on me, because I lack the ability to hide my thoughts about the true danger they present.
My battles with super conservatives leave no blood on the ground.
Take on a green, woman in particular, say as you think!
And debate ends, how dare I or you,say bad things about the greens!@
The FRAGILE NATURE of the greens, refusal to consider others views concerns me.
Cult like, Fundamentalist, any God like, a belief, held in numbers far more represented online than in the community exists.
We are right every one else wrong , our 12% is more important than your 88%
Dislike me, but that is not free speech.
Take notes, as SM has hold them to flog me with but the greens have peaked never again will they have the power to over rule they do today.
After Abbott, soon, Senate will ignore them more often, as it should be.

I like idea of deducting one million from the aid given to the Indonesian Government for every person making it to our shore via Indonesia (that would make them more serious about tackling the corruption that enables hundreds of boats to leave Indonesia 'undetected') but that would never happen in reality.

The best solution to deter people who are 'country shopping' however, is simply to have a register of all 'safe countries' and delegate refugees to these countries randomly (regardless of the country they arrived at) according to the number of refugees that country is able to support. If the refugee chooses not to accept asylum there then he/she forfeits the right to seek asylum anywhere else for the next 5 years. Also, if the authorities determine them to be a refugee (and they accept the invitation to stay in their host country) they should be on probation for at least 5 years. If they fail to make significant effort during that time, or get caught engaging in any criminal activity whatsoever, they should be deported.

Asylum seekers who do choose to come by boat (and make it through to our shores undetected) should live in the community and pay their own way while their status is being verified (they can afford to pay this if they can afford to pay people smugglers). If they do not have the money and are found to be genuine refugees then expenses incurred by the government should be payed back HECS style. In addition extra money should be paid for the administration and processing expenses as well as the privilige of by-passing the usual method of arrival and having their applications fast-tracked. If they are found not to be refugees, then too bad -- they forfeit any right to be compensated (as they were simply just supporting themselves like they should've in the first place). There should be absolutely no legal right to sue the government in any shape or form. If some-one is badly treated then the perpetrator is punished accordingly.

There is simply no reason why refugees should have any right to sue for anything -- ever! They have chosen to come here and accept our hospitality, so they shouldn't complain if they don't like it. The treatment here is 100% better than what they would have got at home (that is why they are running away from there presumably). No amount of arguing will convince me that psychological damage obtained in our detention centers is worthy of million dollar pay-outs. Surely it can't be half as bad as what they experienced before arriving here (and if it's not then why did they come?). They know if they choose to come by boat then they must stay in detention until their status is verified. If they don't then they either didn't do their research or they are stupid and think the rules should/could be changed for them. They honestly must take us for fools (because obviously we are). Last but not least, any-one rioting and destroying property in detention while having their claims assessed should automatically be deported. We shouldn't have to deal with that sort of ungrateful attitude when people are trying hard to help them. Imagine what they could be capable of if they don't get their own way once they are let loose in the community. PS. Don't anyone try and make this a race thing. I don't care what colour some-one is -- black, white, yellow, pink or purple! If you want to live here, respect our way of life and don't try and change it to yours!

Well welcome,your views are very strong and many agree,I am not one.
I want the boats stopped,forever, and a full review of Immigration policy's and the impacts of this brand of multi cultures.
But not unnecessary trouble with Indonesia.
This debate will never be a calm one.
It will always bring heat and, if we let it more trouble by actions like you call for.
Increasingly the debate is dividing us.
A spotlight has to be put too on the impacts of this hung Parliament,and understanding of how it happened.
And the fact, an impact is the temporary rise of the greens.
We too, must understand this issue is not going to see massive change in what the Australian Electorate demands.
They too, the majority, want those two things an end to boats and review of how many come and from what part of the world.
Harsh as it seems, we ignore other ways to help true refugees and try to force feed minority views and wishes to the majority.
Talking to the greens? only worth while way to do that is to make your self aware of our preferential voting system,and use every second third and fourth preference wisely.
Greens last, until we can get one vote one value as the only way to vote.