The Four corners revelations is further proof that the illegals are shonks. Con merchants that are taking us for a ride.

No honest or honourable person would pay $10,000 to get on a leaky boat from Indonesia, when a few hundred will get you here by jet.

Irrespective of the criminality of this Captain Emad, the above is perferctly obvious and the government should put a stop to the boats forthwith. It is costing us a fortune and it has been shown the boats can be stopped.

Another thing, how do these illegals get public housing ahead of citizens who patiently wait ages. Some things really stink.

This government does not have to look far to see why their polling are down

I saw the programme Banjo and it certainly verified what you and
I have been saying all along. The screening of asylum seekers seems
to be a bit of a joke, if we accept these sorts of people as genuine
refugees! Our system is like a sieve with holes, just as we claimed.

It's hilarious that most people believe the vast majority of illegal immigrants come from 'the boats'.

You're naive and kidding yourself.

Nobody made that claim, StG. If you watched the show, you'd realise
that those who do arrive on boats can prepare their story, claim
whatever they like and if they have done just a bit of homework,
we'll most likely be suckers enough to believe them.

That was a statement, not an accusation at anyone here.

<<It's hilarious that most people believe the vast majority of illegal immigrants come from 'the boats'.>>

You know what is even more hilarious. Despite the fact that the old furphy: “Most illegals cum on dah planes and nuthin is eva said of dun ‘bout dat” has been dissected, trisected, quadsected & debunked about 6,000,000 times. There are still some who are wont to try it on

SPQR,
Right on. StG should look at the figures on the DIAC site, they are all there and easy enough to find.

Very few illegal entrants come by air and they are ALL packed off again to their place of departure within 72 hours. There are few because the airlines have to bear the cost.

Still it is not unusual for the advocates of the illegals to say anything.

I agree that many of those arriving here boat or plane are shonks.
I too highlight a truth Labor under estimated the anti boat refugee feeling in this country.
Got it wrong.
How ever greens could fix it over night, if they wanted majority's wishes to stand.
Abbott would be heart broken, he clearly could fix the issue.
But honestly puts Australia second to his ambition.

Don't be so hard on the Mad Monk, Belly, it's the Greens you should take aim at. MM is hoping like hell the Greens will hold fast to their sentimentalist ideals to pave his way as other avenues to the Lodge have dried up.

Well he doesn't have much to worry about does he L'? It is hardy likely the greens will ever do anything intelligent.

They & Julia do belong together.

Please for give Hasbeen L, under that red neck a fine gardener lives.
It is true, an unfortunate Truth, Abbott is quite capable of doing a deal.
Just as true the insignificant little bloke will be held accountable by history and his own party.

Greens? let those who support them first answer,are they aware 12% is not a majority?
Are they aware they could by backing the government, get Malaysia closer to the UNHCR?
Maybe help far more already in that country than those Australia takes.
Time, history, and changing events will judge both Abbott's circus and Greens side show, fellow traveler to Conservatives.

You realise illegal immigrants are also ones that over stay their visa?

StG,
Looks like you finally looked at the DIAC site and got some info, as you have now changed tact.

Forgot the actual percentage, but the vast majority of overstayers are simply tourists who decided to see more while here and after an extra week, or so, leave of their own accord. They are not a burden to us and in fact are still spending their own money while here. No concern about them at all.

The small number of long term overstayers are illegal immigrants and to participate in our society would have to aquire counterfiet documents, cards, etc. From time to time some of these are caught up with, at brothels, sweat shops, building sites and farms, etc. and then deported.

Changed tact? No, I didn't look at the site as I've always known illegal immigrants don't only come from boats and aren't even CLOSE to being where the vast majority come from.

I'm an immigrant, and I did it legally. I have no sympathy for anyone doing it illegally other than genuine refugees.

I'm glad many have found reason to narrow your sights on the people that arrive illegally by boat. Maybe if we curtailed much of the government's wasteful spending we might be able to process HUMANS faster.

Stop the boats? You can't, unless we do everything other than pull a swastika over our sleeves and start executing them.

In a speech still under way,on ABC news 24 Abbott and Morrison are giving the gullible something to chew on.
Let us face it, he is excellent at that.
While the LABOR PARTY is very bad at it,has much to be modest about.
ABBOTT PUTS THREE POINTS IN HIS NEW PLAN.
I support one of them totally BUT.
First only Nehru, no, it will not work.
Two turn boats back when ever possible, wish we could but INDONESIA says no.
But third has both Merritt and is needed if not possible,or is it?
Here we find out if Abbott is chook feeding and if Labor can fix on what people think not what we wish they did.
ANY MIGRANT/REFUGEE arriving here without documents [usually thrown over board] can not receive right to stay.
NOW truth, such person usually is a displaced person no country will except them.
WE CAN NOT SEND THEM BACK.
At the next sitting of Parliament, both party's should change the laws, forget the UNHCR put all such folk on an Australian island FOREVER!
Unless they show us what country they came from and allow us to return them.
This will stop many.
Nehru? say ok but if it is not working in six months we implement Malaysia, have Parliament pass both in to law.
Now for the minority, who will say never, if democracy is letting minority's rule lets put an end to it and have a dictatorship.

Belly,
I agree that we cannot send them back as, without documentation, we cannot prove where they came from, but we can make it undesirable for them to want to try to get here.

We could reopen Nauru and send them all there and only give them TPVs if allowed in, which does not give them right to bring out relos.

If that does not work then tougher measures may be required, such as no citizenship, no public housing and no social security and no right of appeal and no legal aid. We can reduce the quality of life while in detention. If they burn the buildings, they will just have to do without.

Yabby has said for a long time that the refugee convention needs updating, which is right. We could opt out of that.

We probably will see record numbers of boats now untill the next cyclone/wet season. We cannot keep spending $1.5 Billion a year, that money is needed for our own infastructure.

StG,
The boats were stopped before and, with determination, it can be done again.

Its always good to do one's research before
buying into the myths that abound:

http://www.boat-people.org/?page_id=148

Here's another eye-opener:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/taxpayer-60,000-illegal-immigrants/story-fn7x8me2-1226200621996

Here's more food for thought:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/3886792.html

Lexi I have the greatest respect for you.
You may not like it, but I avoid news that sees only its side of issues.
Hence get up Matilda and more as much as the Murdock trash.
And trash it is.
Leaves me short of news but nearly as balanced as it can get.
Every publication has its own view, pushes its own thoughts needs wants and wishes.
If we let one push our views without asking our selves why? we fail our selves.
Debate with me, not the wrongs and rights of boat refugees.
Not of the pain and suffering, not the horrible deaths.
Do not tell me about more refugees coming via ships even but planes mostly.
Those,and many will be the number, who intensely dislike me for my views, please tell me.
John Winston Howard, yes the Children over board lied, but did he not win over LABOR VOTERS BY STOPPING THE BOATS?
A link exists! again I bare myself to be flogged!
But it will remain true never the less, Sydney's ENCLAVES of another religion another culture mostly uninterested in mine.
Is maybe the reason we do not want unselected arrivals.
Say it, so many will! we have prospered on migration, and those migrants their children and grand children think as I do.
Labor mucked it up, we must fix it,conservatives will stand in the way of fixing it.
But we will never win an election if we ignore the wishes of most Australians STOP THE BOATS.

Hi Lexi,
Thanks for linking us to your Sunday School question and answer sheet --I’ve corrected some of the many errors.
(we are thankful at least that this time you didn’t link us to New Matilda!)

Debunking the fabrications:
Fabrication 1 The small number of “asylum seekers” should not cause us concern-FALSE!
The number of contraband smugglers operating through our airports are small –should we show a similar lack of concern on this front?
Fabircation2: The number of boat people have sought asylum in Australia in is tiny when compared to other countries-A MISREPRESENTATION
To compare the Australia’s “hosting” with countries like Syria, Jordan , Chad etc –none of whom has any intention of granting their illegals full and permanent citizenship—is the height idiocy.
Fabrication 3: Australia receives no more refugees than most other country-A MISREPRESENTATION
Ditto answer two
Fabrication 4: Other countries host as many or more “refugees” than OZ –A MISREPRESENTATION
Ditto answer two
Fabrication 5: The influx into OZ is purely part of a worldwide trend—FALSE!
It has more to do with the ALP softening of border protection measures

Fabrication 6: Australia does not take any more asylum seekers now than ever before-FALSE.
The number has been increasing and Chris Bowen our esteemed Minister for (illegal) Immigration is on records as saying he wishes to increase the intake further. .
Fabrication 7: Temporary protection visas and the ‘Pacific Solution’ did not stopped the boats –FALSE!
TPV’s were a major factor in deterring phony “asylum seekers” which is why advocates are terrified they will be reintroduced.
Fabrication 8: People who come by boat are ‘Legals’ --FALSE
They are properly termed ILLEGALS.
Fabrication 9: Most asylum seekers come by plane- ANOTHER MISREPRESENTION
Most that come by plane are quickly repatriated .Unlike the majority who arrive by boat who even when they are found not to be genuine often “cannot” be returned.
Fabrication 10: There are no evidence of terrorists on the boats-FALSE!
Indonesian police have arrested “asylum seekers” intent on going to OZ who had mobile phones with al- Qaeda contact numbers.
Fabrication 11 : It is Not safe for “asylum seekers” back to where they came from-FALSE!
Large numbers of “refugees” return to their “much feared” country of origin for VFR soon after securing an OZ meal ticket.
Fabrication 12: By ratifying the Refugee Convention in 1954 Australia gave any person with a well founded fear of persecution the right to request protection in Australia
As it currently operates OZ grants full citizenship (and lifelong welfare) to whoever can spin a good story..

PS: this guy wants to say hello and thanks to all the advocates downunder who made his stay in OZ possible
http://tinyurl.com/884npkm
He’ll look you up next time he boats in!

With almost 100% of arrivals (kept on the mainland or offshore) successful in asylum claims, as assured by the government funded legal industry surrounding them, there are only two ways forward.

1) The Green way i.e. open the border and take all-comers. This saves money on border control, detention, legal challenges and prosecuting people-smugglers, but puts no limit on intake or cost to the budget.

2) The Malaysian swap, with UN blessing, to strangle the flow of boats and limit the intake to a suitable number processed in Malaysia and elsewhere in the world. Australia can vote for what is "suitable" as each party proposes to budget for at elections.

However, the opposition doesn't want a transparent way forward that could possibly succeed and Greens are sentimental sops who will be martyred at the next election.

Dear SPQR,

Try reading all of the given links.
Then try comprehending what is being
said - especially by the facts presented
by all relevant departments. You are entitled
to your opinions - but the facts contradict you.

cont'd ...

Here is another link to provide some
balance to this discussion:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/how-australia-can-solve-its-asylum-seeker-problems-20110624-1gjlt.html

Dear Belly,

We need more than one liners and slogans to fix the problem.
Malcolm Fraser - argues things rather well in the link I've
just given.

However, I
am aware that we think differently on this issue and that
there are many who feel as you do. My own family members
included. I suspect that this problem will be with us
for quite some time yet. As long as conflict exists globally
and people continue to flee from it.

Hi Lexi,

<<Here is another link to provide some balance to this discussion>>

ROFLMAO

Only someone who religiously reads New Matilda could think that throwing Malcolm Fraser into the mix would “provide some balance”!

ROFLMAO

Let’s just look at one of his points: “Australia needs a solution that involves countries of our own region”
The only solution that might be acceptable to the countries in our region would be one that sees OZ & NZ take ALL of the illegals off their hands!

Malcolm Fraser is walking proof that retired pollies should restrict their attention/activities to pottering about in their family garden.

Dear SPQR,

As I've stated so many times in the past - we may
interpret the same phenomenon - whether its
a PM's policies, a religious doctrine, a
political scandal, and the problem of asylum
seekers or any other social problem - in
very different ways.

We tend to see the world from
a viewpoint of subjectivity - an interpretation based
on personal values and experiences and of course our
political inclinations. Inevitably we're all
guilty of some measure of bias - the tendency, often
unconscious, to interpret things according to our own
values.

Anyway, I'm happy that I made you laugh. Where we would
all have been had you actually read Mr Fraser's comments
and had been prepared to discuss them in a reasoned, logical
manner - the pros and cons of his arguments.

I guess we'll now never know.

cont'd ...

Are you retired SPQR - and do you spend your
time pottering in your garden? Because some
people actually may feel that they have something
to share with younger members of the community -
especially students of politics and international
relations.

Just curious. Because that's sort of an ageist thing
to say about an elder statesman like Mr Fraser.

Banjo, I wonder if one K Rudd will ever be brought to account for this mess.

I mean, of course a whole lot of shonky carry-on was going to happen after our border-protection policies were diluted.

I’d like to know what was really behind his decision to weaken our protection against onshore asylum seeking and how his party and those closest to him, including Gillard, could allow it to happen.

They surely would have known what it would lead to, including putting people smugglers back in business, attracting shonky asylum seekers, causing more deaths at sea, costing us billions, causing a whole of unrest in the Australian community and so on.

So when is Rudd going to face the music?

SPQR,
"retired pollies should restrict their attention/activities to pottering about in their family garden."

Does that apply to Reith, Minchin, Costello and Howard as well , (because they still like to make media comments) or just those pollies who say things you disagree with?

"Fabrication 7: Temporary protection visas and the ‘Pacific Solution’ did not stopped the boats –FALSE!
TPV’s were a major factor in deterring phony “asylum seekers” which is why advocates are terrified they will be reintroduced."

No, TPVs were found to be ineffective and leading to more women and children undertaking boat crossings and the numbers of refugees INCREASED after their introduction.

"Fabrication 11 : It is Not safe for “asylum seekers” back to where they came from-FALSE!
Large numbers of “refugees” return to their “much feared” country of origin for VFR soon after securing an OZ meal ticket."

Large numbers? Any figures to back this up? The media has reported on several returned refugees being killed upon their return.

If all refugees are shonks then all priests must be paedophiles, all lawyers are criminals and all men are rapists and murderers.

Such as SPQR are never going to vote Labor, and never going to concede any good in us.
On our return to government, we armed our self with good intentions.
We took on board while Hawk and his treasurer then PK on his own, did extremely well we had a taint to us.
Voters remembered the high interest nightmares, and the mindless unhelpful chant *what a great set of numbers*
Followed by the *recession we had to have*
We came near to election victory,under the good and wanted big Kim.
But stumbled at the finish, over a rock named boat people.
A Blond Blue eyed Shayne Warne of politics came to us.
Few know it but at first Union power brokers both stood against him, while the few, wisest,fought for him.
Kevin reminded us, and Australia, that he understood our fears about interest rates about perceptions Labor was not safe hands for the economy.
He actually proved that wrong.
Boat people! we used the issue! helped by lies baby over board,hiding a POSSIBLE DELIBERATE MASS MURDER! the mysterious sinking of a refugee boat at sea,we promised?
Well we promised better!
We tried, we failed, assisted by an act of children of unwed parents we failed, over ruled by courts acting on behalf of leftist lawyers.
Abbott's inability to put this tool away, talk of a solution.
We have a plan, it will work, but at the INSISTENCE of greens, minority's, that Australians think other than we do!
We are about to go in to long term opposition!
Wrongly but firmly branded.
Because we can not stop the boats.
And because we, Australian Labor Party are leg ironed by others good intentions.
If these boat people lived within our community's, not excluding us and them selves to enclaves AUSTRALIANS would still want those who cannot pay $11.500 to be those we take.
Those we interview first.
Lexi Tony Abbott has Friends in wedging the ALP, the very same folk who in two years will wish they could come back and fix this now rather than let him implement his policy's.

@Wobbles,

The first question I should ask you is whether any evidence/reasoning I present will make an iota of difference?

But be that as it may:

The purpose of the Refugee Convention is/was to protect persons from persecution.
TPVs are perfectly legal and acceptable under the convention—they are an integral part of the convention.

However, the refugee industry would have us believe that they cause undue trauma among the “asylum seekers” .
But why would this be so –they GUARANTEE the holder protection for as long as the danger remains.

TPV’s would only induce angst/insecurity if the purpose of your trip to OZ wasn’t protection— but permanent economic advancement.

And, there exists NO good reason why “asylum seekers” should not return to their old country after the the danger of *persecution*
has passed.And there exists PLENTY of good reasons why they should.

We still have East Timorese who *sought shelter* during the Indonesian invasion/occupation!

@ Lexi
Do you see me citing Howard, Costello & Co?
And even when I refer to them it's never as additions to Mathew Mark Luke & John.

@Belly,

<< such as SPQR are never going to vote Labor, and never going to concede any good in us>>

LOL

I think you and I have more common ground than you allow.
We need to get past the idea that this is an ALP V Libs sparring match --this is an issue of great importance to ALL Australians.

PS:My very first vole was for the ALP.

Agreed, this isn't about left vs right it's about both sides convincing Australians to vote against their own interests.
Nobody can explain how allowing Third World refugees into Australia makes Australian born people, safer, richer or healthier, it's just "because".
Because Anglicare, SERCO and the Salvos make millions of dollars out of them.
Because they can be used in a tug of war between left and right factions of our irrelevant and incompetent political caste.
This is an issue where the hypocrisy and NewSpeak starts right at the bottom, when otherwise materialistic people immediately have to start talking about ephemeral concepts such as "Intrinsic values" and "Human rights".

The obvious answer is a return the solution that worked. The Pacific solution.

I tend to take a contrarian position just to see how people respond and to push boundaries in the way these issues are discussed.
What if I said most "Refugees" are not "Shonks", nor are they the most "vulnerable" people, as they are so often described.
We seem to have a high number of middle class, educated "refugees" arriving here, former Lawyers, Doctors, Journalists and business people.
What these "oppressive" regimes tend to do, particularly in Africa is shake down and harass the people with money and imprison intellectuals and dissenters, we're not getting the "poorest of the poor", we're getting the displaced Bourgeoisie and managerial types who suffer under these frequent regime changes.
We're also being sold a load of hooey on this "cultural enrichment" excuse, how many more middle class Christians and liberals with a pro Western outlook do we need?
A Catholic is a Catholic, a Pentecostal Christian from Sudan differs little in outlook and habits to one migrating from China we're not gaining anything in that regard and theoretically the "progressives" among us should be as squarely opposed to these "backward" viewpoints in non whites as they are with the majority WASP ACL.

Dear SPQR,

I don't quite understand your reference to
Howard, Costello and Co. and Mathew, Mark,
and John? Still today's Sunday - and perhaps
you had a very spiritually uplifting time in
church this morning. Although, I guess Mr Howard's
exploiting asylum seekers, as well as invading
Iraq - were major blemishes on his time in office
as well as his refusal to retire - which cost
his party the 2007 election.

As for your dig about "New Matilda," As someone
pointed out in an article on the web:
"It is a strange paradox that, while we live in a
torrent of information, there is such a limited
range of available views.

Media ownership in Australia is notoriously narrow.
Mainstream media offers precious little diversity,
and such diversity as there is runs along predictable
lines. The economics of print and electronic media
tend to drive opinion in the direction of populism.
This has unhappy results now that both major political
parties have, it seems, abandoned their founding
principles and form policies by reference to media
coverage generally and to news polls and focus groups
in particular.

And as mainstream traditional media is full of voices
(mostly strident) telling government what to do; so
social media are full of voices - even more numerous
and diverse, and even more strident - doing the same.

Those of us who are torn between the desert of
mainstream media and the jungle of the internet need a
place where rational but diverse views can be found
on matters of enduring importance."

"New Matilda," is such a place, It would be difficult to
agree with everything expressed in the columns of
"New Matilda," but at the same time it would be impossible
to criticise any of them as irrational or foolish."

cont'd ...

Back on topic.

In 2009, the largest number of asylum claims for an
industrialised country was experienced by the USA with
49,000 claims, followed by France with 42,000 claims and
Canada with 33,300.

6,500 claims were lodged in Australia and New Zealand
combined in 2009. In 2009, Australia received 6,170
asylum applications - just 1.6% of the 377,160
applications received across 44 independent nations.
Of the 44 pations Australia was ranked 16th overall and was
21st on a per capita basis.

People will always seek to move from poor unstable countries
to stable and rich ones. That will not change any time soon -
and it is time that we realised that people smuggling is
a regional problem and no matter what government will be
in power this problem will need to be addressed.
Personally I felt that a regional agreement with Malaysia
was a step in the right direction - because travelling all
the way to Australian waters and ending up back where you
started in Malaysia at great expense -
it would be discouraging
to repeat the process again - at great expense.

But if you're taken to Nauru - you're almost guaranteed to
end up in Australia.

Hi Lexi,

<< Australia received 6,170 asylum applications - just 1.6% >>
On per capita basis –a favourite measure of those on the left when it comes to AGW -- I’ll think you will find we rank quite high.

<<Of the 44 [n]ations Australia was ranked 16th overall and was>>
Yes, but AGAIN, few of those 44 (exemplary!) nations have any intention of ever granting their illegals full or permanent citizenship. Unlike (bleedin heart intimidated) OZ, which grants full citizenship to the “asylum seeker” (plus any number of their relos who may be still overseas) and welfare for life for one and all.

<<People will always seek to move from poor unstable countries to stable and rich ones. That will not change any time soon>>
Aye, that is the case. But it is important (and damning!) to remember that these people are seeking to move from richer to poorer under the guise of ‘asylum seeking’; they are USING THE REFUGEE CONVENTION AS THEIR PRETEXT!
It was never designed for that.

<<people smuggling is a regional problem>>
Taking in terms of it being a regional problem (or seeking regional solutions/agreements) only clouds the issue.
Our near neighbors (with the possible exception of NZ) have little interest in anything but fobbing the illegals off onto OZ : You give us 2,000 and we’ll give 12,000!

<<But if you're taken to Nauru - you're almost guaranteed to end up in Australia>>
We can do things on a more fundamental level to discourage the shonks:
1) The reintroduction of TPV’s is one , &
2) The oppositions announcement last night of a different approach to those without papers is another good one.

SPQR those arriving without papers do so for a reason.
It is very hard to prove who they are.
They in fact are stateless people if we can not.
But I agree, it is while not new a good policy.
Not kind not easy, but well worth while implementing.
Just as the Malaysian plan is all of that.
First bar for ever every no papers arrival UNLESS VERY SPECIAL succumb stances exist, true refugees not economic ones.
House them on an island under our control, permanently!
If after 5 years the scheme has stopped boats,offer them, each six months, air fair home, if they prove it was home.
I earn, and expect, contempt for my harsh views, but look at it this way.
Minority's want to over look the wishes of the majority, every time on this issue.
Explain to me as this is the case why stay with Democracy? if in effect we are over ruled every time?

Dear SPQR,

I prefer to deal with facts, not opinion based on -
untruths, myths, and spin.

I'm sure however that you will find losts of
kindred spirits who will support you on this forum.

Cheers.

The facts on the table are that with the pacific solution about 100 people came on boats per year. Under Labor's open borders we are getting closer to 5000 per year, and increasing.

For the problem of border control the solution is Pacific.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We realise that your party has an over-
riding desire that people coming to this
country do so in a controlled fashion.
That this is not just a legal principle of
sovereignty, but a humanitarian one to
ensure people don't cross the dangerous
waters between SE Asia and Australia in
unsea worthy vessels. However don't you
think that placing them on an island -
that last time cost Australian taxpayers
in the billions ( over 600,000 per person)
not counting the terrible mental afflictions
that they suffered - and guaranteed them
entrance to Australia anyway - don't you
think a repeat of this process - especially
now that conditions have changed globally -
is such a wise idea? Really?

More than your usual party mantra would be
appreciated.

Shadow Minister want's a return to turning back boats or, when we can't get away with that for maritime safety reasons, we take them to an island where they are processed and virtually 100% get residency. What's the point of the island, how does it offer something seriously different to mainland detention which results in the same near 100% success rate?

The island has nothing to do with anything. Turning boats back in contravention of UN obligations is what did the trick and that's what the euphemism "Pacific solution" boils down to. Been there and done that with SM to the point of nausea and refuse to bother any further with someone who just chants the mantra however much the facts or Immigration Dept disagrees with him . So, don't hold your breath Lexi, which I'm sure you're not.

The Greens have a choice, which it appears they are too sentimental, soppy and naive to exercise, as to whether or not they want to continue their influence in determining government policies after the next election. Their present attitude is as stupid as a suicide bomber's, thinking they can change the world by entering paradise.

Hi Belly,

We have much common ground on this one.

The vast majority of west Asians ( Iranians /Iraqis / Afghanis/ Pakistanis) start their trip to OZ by jetting into Malaysia.

They have to had “papers” to jet to Malaysia!

They ditch their papers soon after arrival.

The story that they never had any papers is a nonsense –and the refugee activists/Greens know it.

I remember when SBS ran their atrocious beat-up “Go Back to Where You came From”. When they allowed their token “refugees “ to speak for themselves, they said [QUOTE] “We got to Malaysia”

No one from SBS asked: But, how did you get to Malaysia?
The SBS commentator immediately jumped to the: we-are-poor-fellows-theme.

If you had spoken to captain Emad a month ago. He would have told you that he was a poor-fellow “refugee” with no papers and no place to go.
The funny thing is that when faced with possible prosecution/jail he was able to jet out of the country within 24 hours

Lexi,

For someone that supposedly relies on facts, the Pacific solution cost a tiny fraction of what it is costing the Labor government today. The cost of $500 000 per person was when Nauru only had a handful of people, and the "damage" that the 4 boat people in detention in 2007 compared to the 1000s today is minimal. Pull the other leg!

What we have now is rampant abuse of the UNHCR agreement where "refugees" are given the benefit of the doubt, and come with no papers and a fabricated story.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/boats-keep-coming-and-the-real-cost-keeps-rising-20120610-20471.html
Those taking part in this debate would be best served by reading the link.
Always an emotional subject, always at least for some heated, this some what raw story will bring those feelings out again.
I ALP every inch, can not avoid this truth, we mucked it up.
Watch the defense, the truth, Abbott too mucks it up, but we empowered his muck up.
Look at the costs!
We spend enough to house every Aboriginal , to build a new dam to build a new international airport.
We waste it, every cent.
IF Greens will not buy pass Conservative road blocks,LABOR Must BY PASS THE GREENS!
Today.
Get Abbott,a man who puts himself before country this day! and AGREE TO HIS TERMS!
Push every thing back, next sitting of Parliament and pass legislation to stop the boats.
The world is not fair, it is not nice, Australians in massive numbers have had enough, economic refugees arriving uninvited are hurting us.
Show me the concerns for our own, living still in shanty towns, while we spend BILLIONS because of politicians EGOS.

*What we have now is rampant abuse of the UNHCR agreement where "refugees" are given the benefit of the doubt, and come with no papers and a fabricated story.*

That has been my point all along, SM. So when will our politicians
show some backbone and openly admit it and set about to update
the UN agreement? Tony Blair raised this years ago and its been
a massive problem for Greece, Spain, Italy and other countries
being flooded from Africa. No doubt its not helping their financial
calamity either.

Perhaps here we need some bipartisan discussions locally between
the big two parties and finally bring about changes long overdue.

Have just scanned through the posts up to date.
It seems the posters STILL do not understand that Indonesia CANNOT
refuse entry to a returning vessel.

It is an Indonesian flagged vessel, even if not flying a flag, and is
owned and crewed by Indonesians. Also it is back at its port of departure.

It is the same as if a Many ferry went 12 miles out to sea and came
back, Australia could not refuse entry.

GOT IT ?

Lidwig,
Sorry mate, been otherwise engaged for a bit. Rudd will not be brought to book for his massive error in reversing previous policy because the cabinett agreed that Lib policy had to be wrong. It is called 'ideology'. The same reason that Labor will not introduce TPVs and open Nauru, even though this issue is bleeding them to death.
'Pride comith before a fall'

Frankly, the illegals are now so convinced that Aus is soft and stupid, I deduce it will take a lot more to deter the boats from coming now. The backdown on the 'Oceanic Viking' was another political blunder.

Lexi,
I have to give you marks for persistance, but that does not make what is in your links correct. Fraser was, and is, a fool. Hope you read Paul Sheehan this morning. He is one commentator that speaks sense and coming from the SMH it should be acceptable to you.

Perhaps we have to ask who in the AFP and ASIO are getting kickbacks to keep the boat trade going?

Seems they make no effort to police it at all.

Likewise with prostitution and the flood of Asian women here.

They can't all be doing MBAs and running their business as a 'practical project', can they?

No, our police force is on the take, big time, here, as they are with drugs too.

Dear Banjo,

I did read the article that you mentioned by
Paul Sheehan in this morning's SMH.
No surprises there. However, you should
actually look into the qualifications of
the person writing the article. Sheehan is
a right-wing columnist who always writes from
a conservative viewpoint. He's anti multiculturalism,
and has written extensively on it and our immigration
policies. His is not a balanced point of view by
any standards. Still to each his own. And if he speaks
to you - fair enough. BTW - Sheehan would make
Shadow Minister look progressive.

Lexi,

Can you challenge these figures:

"The most disturbing aspect of this comprehensive debacle is the cost. According to the budget papers for the past four years, the annual expenditure on asylum-seeker management was a few million dollars in 2007-08. It exploded to $100 million in 2008-09, then $300 million the following year, then $900 million last year, then to a projected $1.1 billion-plus in this financial year.

The total direct cost over the past three years is about $2.3 billion, a time of about 16,000 boat people arrivals, which equates to $139,000 per asylum seeker processed."

With indirect costs such as those for the legal system the number is approaching $250 000 per asylum seeker processed. Which is half what the coalition was spending, but on 50x the number of asylum seekers.

Australia sending boats back to Indonesia is far different than trying to stop a manly ferry returning to Sydney.
We should not provoke other country's, such an act is just that.
May be worth while considering just how big the impacts of our failure to stop the boats has on Malaysia and Indonesia!
They both suffer, far more than us, because of our failures.
Lexi, with respect, your view here has always been one eyed.
After the next federal election harsher views will stop the boats, without the input of those who are more caring.
And this issue will contribute to my party's fall, truth can not be avoided by wishes and dreams.

Dear SM,

I have no intention of challenging anything
anymore with you. All I can hope for is that
eventually the issue of asylum seekers will
be discussed rationally by the major parties -
without political scoring and that they will
be able to come together to find a middle-road
in solving the problem instead of "It's our
way or the highway," approach that they currently
have. Although I don't frankly see that
happening any time soon not as long as the Opposition
see asylum seekers as - the "gift that keeps on
giving," or that the only solution is "Na-Na-Na-Nau-Nauru!"

Lexi,

You have never been able to dispute the figures. Neither can Labor.

The coalition has made an offer of compromise, now it is time for Labor to come to the table.

No Belly, Indonesia can be neither offended or upset that a boat
returns, they should not have allowed them to sail anyway.
There are international laws governing seagoing passenger vessels and
I seriously doubt there has ever been one survey of any of them.

It is their problem not ours, however I do concede your point that the
changes we made to our laws has caused them a lot of grief.
They cannot avoid a major part of the blame by allowing those people
into Indonesia in the first place, after all they need to control their own borders.

Dear SM,

Again you don't seem to be able to comprehend
what has been said in the past and why. Context
is everything and figures don't mean much
taken out of that context. Links have been
provided for you - over and over again from a
variety of sources and all you keep doing is
repeating the same things over and over again.
With you there is no communication whatsoever -
because you are only capable of seeing a very
narrow picture. As for the Opposition offering a
compromise? Only if its Nauru. And that is no
compromise - merely the same old scenario.

Boing boing

and all you keep doing is
repeating the same things over and over again.

Boing boing

Quite an echo chamber

Dear Bazz,

I fully understand your reaction.
Sarcasm is your body's defence against ignorance.
Well done and keep it up.

The debate as usual has more than its fair share of heat.
SOME I expected, and as blind to balance as ever, Gday SM,
Bazz seems content to forget these folk while in Indonesia, are not from that country, but like Malaysia, just passing through.
Indonesia has made it clear, once free of their waters, they do not want them turned around.
Lexi here too, wanting to be nice, asks the majority of AUSTRALIANS to forget what they want.
The world is not perfect, thousands die in Africa, of starvation, on our borders half of an independent country Papua New Guinea is held wrongly by a country that kills- for flying a flag of Independence.
Good or bad sane or mad the truth is this *if we except boat people, all of them, without detention, soon ten thousand a year arrive*
* then? do the maths, with no restraints 100.000 is not out of the question*
And every one self selected

Hi there BLUE CROSS...

That's a pretty big statement to make...the AFP and ASIO are on the take ? Even including crimes of, Asian Prostitution and Drug Importation.

What evidence do you have to support your assertion ? Or is it simply an asinine remark as a demonstartion of your chagrin at the apparent impotence of the coppers for not being able to successfully interdict these crimes ?

As I've stated previously, often the coppers 'know' the author of a crime. But that's an entirely different proposition to being able to 'prove it' in a court of law, to a point beyond that of a reasonable doubt.

Dear Belly,

From my understanding - in the 1940s, 1950s, and
possibly later, the governments of the day wanted
people who for two years had to work wherever they
were needed - in the sugar-cane-fields, in the forests,
on the roads, and on projects like the Snowy Mountain
Scheme. Today - the miners need workers to work in the mines.
Farmers need help to survive - and I'm sure there are other
industries that could use people eager to work.
Gina Rinehart needs over 1,700 workers, not to mention other
mining magnates. And this is only one example.

Why can't we give all these so called - "undesirables"
the opportunity to work in the mines and in other
industries.

There are solutions to the problem - if we are prepared
to look for them and not simply play politics or fall for
the scare tactics that are currently on display in the media.

<< then? do the maths, with no restraints 100.000 is not out of the question>>

100,000 would be too low an estimate!

If we open our doors to “climate refugees” -- as the Green’s seem hell bent of doing --the figure is likely to be many times higher.

Every time there is flood, drought, forest fire or locust plague in Asia all those who [in the illuminating words of Lexi ]
“SEEK TO MOVE FROM POOR UNSTABLE COUNTRIES TO STABLE RICH ONES” will be landing on our shore claiming “climate refugees” status –and probably getting it too.

“In 2020, the UN has projected that we will have 50 million environmental refugees,”
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jnW80NlFZ259UCgMAHSd3ekHutiQ?docId=CNG.aa651167cd0af745b3cb395cf1d402e3.c41

Belly said;
Indonesia has made it clear, once free of their waters, they do not want them turned around.

It does not matter what Indonesia wants, they are Indonesian vessels
and Indonesian crews, they have NO CHOICE but to accept them back.

Yes Belly, a 100,000 a year is not beyond being possible.
Two large freighters were organised to take Sri Lankens to Canada.
I was in Vancouver when the first arrived, from memory there were
about 400 on each.
I have been surprised that the smugglers have not bought one of the
old freighters that are always up for sale, loaded it up with 1000
"asylum seekers" and set out on a voyage to Sydney, docking at the
overseas terminal.

They would have to put up at the Four Seasons Hotel, it is only a
short walk, as Villawood would be overloaded.

Just in case you think I am being sarcastic, well I am not,it has
already been done. I remember seeing on TV a freighter arriving in
Italy with several thousand standing on the decks.

If we do not act on this problem thats what we will be facing.

Green's application of the balance of power drives the arrivals of unseaworthy boats with an accompanying death rate they shrug off with "accidents happen". Positing current boat-people numbers as insignificant in relation to the total migrant intake is naive and myopic justification for a block-everything stance. That they will be consigned to oblivion (paradise?) at the next election, unless they quickly mature, escapes them entirely.

I don't blame the Mad Monk for this state of affairs as he is doing what desperate, ego-driven, sly political hacks do to survive and extend their power at the expense of their nation. Greens, on the other hand, have no apparent interest in surviving to wield any further influence over government policy. Inexplicable.

Lexi,

I fully comprehend what has been going on.

You try and dismiss Paul Sheehan's article out of hand because he "is conservative" and refuse to address the verifiable numbers in his article that shred your illusions. Note that the SMH is not known for being right wing, and his articles facts are checked. Yet you almost exclusively post "opinion" pieces from the far left blog The New Matilda that are devoid of facts.

The reality is that the claims that "the pacific solution didn't work" are believed by almost no one, which is why Labor tried to come up with an alternative "Malaysian Solution" which was even worse than the Pacific solution.

Lexi I am a BIGOT!
I offer no defense!
A strange one how ever, I understand and remain grateful for it, the post ww 2 refugees, helped make us the great country we are today.
they, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT SHARE MY VIEWS AND bigotry!
Belly the BIGOT, also knows post gold rush migration too played its part, INCLUDING THE CHINESE.
However I refuse to compare the post Vietnam war boat people with todays refugees, BIGOTS DO THAT!
I also say, SOME of that wave of refugees, have proved to be a problem, we would be better without.
But from each wave of refugees, including this one, GREAT AUSTRALIANS come.
We, in trying to swim up a water fall, feed the Shadow Ministers, and many exist.
Liberals, in Conservative hands, will never act to end this,they feed on our inability to see what our country men and women want.
Drop border protection, see the boats become fleets over night.
Bazz I respect your great work in our hobby, you are being blind to this, those boats are not! full of Indonesians!
You propose an unfriendly action that YOU WOULD NOT EXCEPT IF THEY DID IT TO US!
Labor has the high moral ground! but under Gillard it is ten feet under the sea!
Let Abbott have his way,prove it will not work highlight its failure and try again to pass Malaysian deal.
Or cut the red tape
DUMP GILLARD!

Dear Shadow Minister,

As usual you comprehend very little.

1) I did not "dismiss" Paul Sheehan as you claim.
I merely pointed out his political leanings.

2) Historically the Sydney Morning Herald has
been a conservative newspaper. Do your research.

3) As I stated earlier - It would be difficult to
agree with every view expressed in the columns
of New Matilda but it would be equally difficult
to disagree with them all. And it would be
impossible to criticise any of them as
irrational or foolish.

Regarding your continued references to the "Pacific
Solution," here's a link that sheds another
perspective:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/asylum-seekers-time-for-the-australian-solution/

Dear Belly,

Did you see the PM on "Q and A," last night?
She was awesome.
Mr Abbott has been invited to appear on the program.
He's declined. I wonder why?

Belly, I just don't understand you.
>those boats are not! full of Indonesians!

Who said they were ?
It does not matter, they are Indonesian vessels, under Indonesian command.
It matters not a jot the nationality of the passengers.
That is all there is to it !

Did you hear Gillard last night ? Said the Temporary Protection Visas
had no effect !

Oh dear.
I thought she was a reasonably competent lawer and politician but I
have come to realise that she must either be stupid or just can't
think ahead and adjust what she says to reasonably fit the facts.
She seems to have a blank wall for the future.
She says NOW what suits, but does not understand the future implications.
That might explain a lot of things as I think it is unlikely she is stupid.
I have had experience of someone who acts like Julia and they just cannot see their problem.

Dear Bazz,

Have a read of the following link:

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2757748.html

You need to know the facts before spouting
misinformation.

Interesting Lexi,
Does put a different light on the TPV as a stand alone restriction.
If it did cause more women to be on boats then it did have a behavior
modification effect. So when coupled with other factors such as
Nauru etc it was then more effective.

Why would more women come if they knew they were to get TPVs ?
They could then be deported with their menfolk anyway.
Were they being told something different by the smugglers ?
I think the stats ended too soon. If there had been no other changes
the effect of TPVs would have meant most could be deported.
So I think it must be agreed that when coupled with other provisions
it is effective.
We will never know what would have happened if no other changes had
been introduced.

The arrival from Indonesia without documents must mean that the
person is trying to hide their identity. If that is so they should be
returned to Indonesia.
I suspect that their passports are sold into the false passport
industry. Some countries passports have weak security and would be
worth quite a lot of money.

Dear Bazz,

May I politely suggest that you re-read
the previous link I gave you.
The author has thoroughly researched
this subject for her PhD and as she
clearly states:

"If anyone tells you that TPVs were a fact
in stopping boats in 2001 rest assured they
have no idea what they are talking about or
they are simply lying."

Bazz,

I'd urge you to take a look at some of comments attached to the bottom of Lexi’s article/link, which demolish her hypothesis.


Like this one:

<<GrazingGoat66 : 15 Jun 2011 10:01:51pm
How about some facts from the website that the apologist author herself quoted from at the start of the article.
Between 2001 and February 2008 a total of 1637 people had been detained in the Nauru and Manus facilities. Of these, 1153 (70 per cent) were ultimately resettled in Australia or other countries. Of those who were resettled 705 (around 61 per cent) were resettled in Australia.[69]

Not 95% or some of the fantasy figures being quoted by the soft left, but the figures as quoted above.
And now let's look at the arrivals for the period which was unfortunately (and obviously inadvertently??) missing from the original article
2002 1 person on 1 boat
2003 53 persons on 1 boat
2004 15 persons on 1 boat
2005 11 persons on 4 boats
2006 60 persons on 6 boats
2007 148 persons on 5 boats

Just presenting the facts in the interest of informed discussion....unlike the author>>

Or, this one:

<<Hahaha : 15 Jun 2011 5:25:53pm
Pre-2001: TVP is changed variable.

2001-2008: TVP is one factor among others.

Post-2008: TVP is abolished.

Author's hypothesis:
TVPs increased the number of boat people who attempt to reach Australia, ergo, TVPs are not a deterrence factor.

Confirmation:
If TVPs have a positive relationship with boat people numbers, then this relationship would be supported by 2001-2008 data, while post-2008 data would show this relationship in reverse.

Data:
No data after 2001 provided.

Conclusion:
Not enough information provided to support hypothesis. Dismissed.>>

And , here’s a further piece of evidence. The *Refugee Industry* which relies on a constant flow of new “refugees” for its self actualization, and ultimate funding is scared stiff of any talk of re-introduction of TPV’s .

Actually their reaction/emotions pretty well parallels those of a shonky merchant selling medicine-show tonic who suddenly gets visit from the health department wanting to test his goods!

Lexi,

I clearly understand the figures, and you clearly do not. Quoting refugee advocates is no way approaching balanced.

Just look at the figures that SPQR posted. In 6 years under the pacific solution there were 288 asylum seekers arriving via boat. The following 4 years without the pacific solution have seen 18000. The only explanation you have given is that a 20% increase in refugees world wide has lead to a 6000% increase in boat refugees to Australia. The simple maths is against you.

TPVs were an active deterrent. It stopped the boats sending a single family member then bringing the rest over. No one pretends that it is a solution in itself.

Likewise 30% of those going to Nauru were repatriated, whereas today where the courts give the benefit of the doubt, 70% are getting approved by the tribunal, but 99% are getting residence, and costing Australia a fortune in legal costs.

Dear Shadow Minister,

There is precious little diversity in your
views and frankly I am tired of being polite
and responding to them. I don't want to be rude,
or anti-social - but frankly you're not that
interesting. However, do continue to talk to
those who have the wisdom to see things your way.
I'm not one of them.

Dear SPQR,

I can't be held responsible for your
comprehension skills old chap.
But keep posting the way that you do -
and I shall try to figure out what you're
compensating for.

LOL

Thanks Lexi --I love you too.

There was a significant number on boats during the early TPV years,
but I think it is inescapable that a suite of arrangements stopped them
dead in the water. (no nasty pun intended).

Still the government could send 800 of them to Malaysia if it wanted
to bother. It has control of both houses, but I suspect they now
realise what a poor deal it is; we send you 800 & we send you 4000 !
Then what do we do with all the rest of them ?

No, I am afraid it is "Pull Up the Drawbridge Time".
Enough is enough.

Dear SPQR,

Thank You.
You've made me blush.
And I like it.

Lexi,

I was looking forward to you attempting to respond to the figures, but as always you cannot. At least you admit that you don't have the wisdom to understand them. Otherwise you would admit, as has labor, that a deterrent is required.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You enjoy teasing me don't you?
Well I won't be taking up the gauntlet
this time - much as I also enjoy our
"flirtations." Not that I can't - simply
that I've come down with a bad cold - and
I'm tired. I need all of my wits about me
to deal with the challenges you throw at me.
So be patient. I shall be back. But for now -
you'll have to excuse me.

Take care.

Get well soon.

SM

Ahhhh Lexi, has the Melbourne disease as my family calls it.
Every time we go there for a visit we come back with it.
I came back with it last week and the better half has been laid up
really bad with it for a week.

Hope you recover quicker than we have.

I am getting old. maybe I am a fool.
But if we, Australia said its not worth the effort.
Lets let them in.
Give the greens,the nice folk their way.
No detentions no questions.
Just maybe this old fool has it right.
We could see fleets of boats,hundreds of thousands come.
Once such coming here uninvited ,without warning , would have been an invasion.
So its only less than 10.000? with all the weapons we can put up to stop them?
How many if we drop the fence?